The Best Legal Minds
Flexible Resolution of The Biggest Matters
Steven Skulnik, Esq. <br/><div style='color:#83603e;font-size:12px;'>New York, New York</div>

Steven Skulnik, Esq.
New York, New York


Steven Skulnik focuses his practice on litigation and arbitration matters. He has trial and appellate experience in many areas including commercial contracts, art and antiquities law, banking, employment law, real estate, shareholder and partnership disputes, trade secret, trademark, information technology and unfair competition. He has tried actions in federal and state courts and in international and US arbitrations.

Steven Skulnik’s law practice focused on litigation and arbitration matters. He previously was counsel at Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP and a partner at Pavia & Harcourt LLP. He represents employers in all aspects of employment law including discrimination, wrongful discharge, retaliation and sexual harassment matters. He also assists clients in maintaining policies and procedures consistent with anti-discrimination and other employment laws.

Steven is a Senior Arbitration Editor at Practical Law (Thomson Reuters).

Representative Matters:

As an arbitrator:

  • Chairman of the tribunal in a dispute between an educational testing service and software developer.
  • Chairman of the tribunal in a dispute over hotel franchise agreement.
  • Chairman of the tribunal in a dispute between a food manufacturer and its multi-unit franchisee.
  • Chairman of the tribunal in a dispute between a compiler of data on recycled automobile parts and manufacturer of automobile part information systems.
  • Chairman of the tribunal in a dispute between parties who owned the same trademark in different territories over the reasonableness of termination of a license agreement.
  • Sole arbitrator in a dispute between a buyer and seller of commercial real property in Europe.
  • Sole arbitrator in a dispute between a photographer’s representative and a photographer.
  • Sole arbitrator in a dispute over “Fair market value of distribution rights” under New York’s Alcohol Beverage Control Law.
  • Sole arbitrator in a dispute between investment banker and his former employer.
  • Sole arbitrator in a dispute over termination of Medicare Advantage provider agreement.
  • Sole arbitrator in a dispute between a local exchange carrier and a telecommunications billing aggregator over indemnity relating to consumer class action.
  • Co-arbitrator in a patent license dispute.
  • Co-arbitrator in a dispute under a janitorial services contract for NHL hockey arena.
  • Co-arbitrator in a dispute involving a license agreement between a software developer and an insurance company.
  • Co-arbitrator in a warranty dispute concerning a large cabin business jet.
  • Co-arbitrator in a dispute between members concerning removal of a manager and derivative claims against the removed manager.
  • Co-arbitrator in a dispute brought by a fifty percent member of an LLC brought derivatively on behalf of the LLC against trademark licensor.

As a mediator:

  • In a dispute between two technology integration firms.
  • In a royalty dispute in a fashion license.
  • In a dispute over website design.
  • In a dispute between a hotel owner and its manager.
  • In a dispute over a sales commission plan between employee and company that provides treasury services to hedge funds.
  • In a dispute over restrictions on insider’s on sale of company stock.


  • New York, 1984


  • U.S. Ct. of App., Second Circuit
  • U.S. Dist. Ct., E. Dist. of New York
  • U.S. Dist. Ct., S. Dist. of New York
  • U.S. Dist. Ct., W. Dist. of New York


  • Brandeis University (BA, Economics-1980)
  • Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (JD-1983)


  • New York, New York


  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

© Copyright 2020 Federal Arbitration | All Rights Reserved | Terms and Conditions | Privacy

Disclaimer   This website is not a solicitation for business. All content on the FedArb website is intended to provide general information about FedArb and an opportunity for interested persons to contact FedArb. The content of this website is not offered as legal advice or legal opinion and it should not be relied upon for any specific situation. FedArb neutrals are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney client relationship is intended. This website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a complete description of FedArb services. While FedArb endeavors to keep the information updated and correct, FedArb makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the information contained in this website. No guaranty is made of the neutrality of FedArb’s arbitrators and the use of the term “Neutrals” is for descriptive purposes only.