Arbitration and Litigation: The Modern Era
By: Nic Abelian
When Muhammad Qasim Sheikh first began practicing as a litigator in Pakistan, he witnessed how the legal system’s structure shaped dispute resolution. After gaining three years of experience in civil law at Legal 500 law firms, he is now pursuing his Master of Laws at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, where he is also part of the International Human Rights Clinic. This early experience continues to inform his academic exploration into the evolving relationship between arbitration and litigation.
Sheikh’s legal writing has appeared in newspapers and leading journals such as The Express Tribune, The Nation, Pakistan Legal Decisions, and London Daily News, where he has explored various aspects of modern jurisprudence. While his previous work did not primarily focus on arbitration, he has still worked on arbitration matters, including obtaining a 100 million PKR arbitral award made rule of court for a client in Pakistan. His extensive experience in litigation has provided a strong foundation for his examination of how arbitration interacts with and at times diverges from traditional litigation processes. In this article, he draws on his professional background in both litigation and arbitration to highlight the limitations of arbitration, particularly in preserving legal protections and ensuring procedural fairness within the U.S. legal framework.
Sheikh’s exploration of arbitration and litigation within the U.S. legal system underscores an important point: the court may order arbitration of a particular dispute only if it is satisfied that the parties agreed to arbitrate it. Furthermore, it is the court’s duty to determine whether the conflict between the parties falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 830 F.3d 1335,1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This balance between private resolution and public oversight is essential, particularly when ensuring fairness and protecting legal rights.
This topic is not just theoretical. Sheikh argues that real-world legal disputes often hinge on whether an arbitration clause is transparent, equitable, and applicable to the issue at hand. Although Sheikh is not currently studying dispute resolution at Northwestern, his past experience as a litigator has sparked an interest in exploring the relationship between arbitration and litigation. Drawing on his professional background, he addresses the limitations of arbitration in this article, particularly when measured against public interest and legal safeguards. Sheikh takes a neutral, well-documented approach to these issues, emphasizing the importance of clarity, procedural fairness, and due process in the context of arbitration’s role within the legal system.
Sheikh argues that rather than presenting arbitration and litigation as opposing forces, they should be viewed as complementary components of the legal system. He notes that while arbitration can play a valuable role in easing court backlogs and providing more tailored resolutions, it is litigation that offers a consistent mechanism for protecting rights, establishing precedent, and ensuring accountability. This is particularly important when disputes involve unequal bargaining power or have broader implications for public policy.
Sheikh suggests that while arbitration can be effective, it is still constrained by the limits set by courts and the legal framework of the arbitration’s seat. Similarly, commentators emphasise that courts play a supportive yet essential role in enforcement, procedural fairness, and the supervision of arbitral awards.
This article delves into the ongoing debate between arbitration and litigation, exploring why arbitration cannot supersede litigation in specific legal contexts. While both methods offer distinct advantages, the complexities and real-world implications of each process must be carefully considered. This analysis provides a thoughtful examination of the stakes involved, grounded in established legal frameworks, and aims to clarify the situations in which both litigation and arbitration work simultaneously.
Sheikh views private dispute mechanisms as needing to operate within a legal framework that prioritizes fairness and accessibility. He emphasizes that the judiciary plays an irreplaceable role in ensuring that legal agreements, including arbitration clauses, do not infringe upon fundamental rights.
As he continues his graduate studies at Northwestern, Sheikh aims to explore the litigation side of the law more deeply and understand the interlink between arbitration and litigation. One of his goals is to investigate further how these two mechanisms can coexist within the legal system and how best to balance efficiency with the protection of legal rights.
Explore More of Muhammad Qasim Sheikh’s Work
Readers who want to follow his academic journey and future publications can connect with him on his LinkedIn profile. To learn more about his writing and professional development, visit his profile on LinkedIn.
Disclaimer: The content in this article is provided for general knowledge. It does not constitute legal advice, and readers should seek advice from qualified legal professionals regarding particular cases or situations.












