Print Friendly

Stephen G. Yusem

  • Fellow, College of Commercial Arbitrators
  • Fellow, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
  • Accredited Mediator, Center for Effective Dispute Resolution
  • Chair, Pennsylvania Bar Association Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee

For more than four decades, Stephen G. Yusem has been actively engaged in arbitration. Whether serving under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) or as an ad hoc individual Neutral or through a court-annexed system, he has adjudicated countless commercial and construction claims as a sole arbitrator, panel chair and as impartial and partial arbitrator under the ABA/AAA Code of Ethics for Arbitrators in Commercial Disputes.

He is a fellow of both the prestigious 200-member College of Commercial Arbitrators and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators having successfully completed an intensive training course at Keble College, Oxford University. Mr. Yusem serves as chair of the Pennsylvania Bar Association Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee and recently chaired the Commercial Subcommittee of the Pennsylvania Joint State Government Commission Advisory Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution. He is a past Director of the Commercial Section of the Association for Conflict Resolution, and he is certified as both an arbitrator and mediator by Construction Dispute Resolution Services (CDRS).


Why Use Alternative Dispute Resolution?

The alternative dispute resolution processes offer many important advantages over litigation. Generally, they are less expensive and more expeditious than a state or federal jury or bench trial where disputes are subject to several levels of appeal and re-trial. The disputing parties have far more control in terms of selecting the Neutral as well as the date, time and place of the process as opposed to a judge who completely controls litigation. The parties may select a Neutral based on qualifications, expertise, reputation, temperament and years of experience. In litigation, a judge is essentially imposed on the parties. Alternative dispute resolution processes are private and more confidential than trials which are open to the public. Additionally, alternative dispute resolution processes are much less formal and much more flexible than litigation.