The recent announcement of the launch of the Court of Arbitration for Art (CAA) is exciting and intriguing news. There is nothing peculiar to the art market or the art world about the existence of disputes—any businessperson in a wide variety of industries can testify to that. But what is promising about this initiative is the opportunity it presents to streamline an important segment of art world disputes, and in so doing to create a larger body of legal guidance that will in itself be useful in and outside of formal controversies. It does not supplant civil litigation in courts, nor does it make any pretense of doing so. It could, however, become an important complement. Critical will be enough buy-in from lawyers in particular to become willing to recommend its inclusion in contracts, for example. I would certainly include myself in that group, depending on the specific circumstances.
Topics: Court of Arbitration for Art, CAA, New York, London, Geneva, Authentication in Art, Arbitration, AAA, JAMS, Tom Brady, The Hague, Netherlands Arbitration Institute, NAI, Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016, HEAR Act, William Charron, Pryor Cashman LLP, Megan Noh, Cahill Cossu & Robinson LLP, Judith Prowda, Sotheby’s Institute of Art, Stropheus, Luke Nikas, Quinn Emanuel Urquart & Sullivan LLP