Judicial Recognition

The firm is now devoting increased emphasis to arbitration of energy disputes as well as expert litigation consulting. Cockrell's efforts in arbitration have been recognized favorably by the judiciary.  In Genecov Group, Inc. v. Roosth Production Co., 144 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. App.) the Court commented on Cockrell's order in the subject arbitration:

"When the supplemental arbitration order was issued, arbitrator Melvin Cockrell prepared a prescient special concurrence stating that he had 'broader concerns':

Parties to a long, expensive and continuing controversy, of which this arbitration is only a part, have put before this panel three highly circumscribed questions.... Speaking only for myself, I wonder why the parties selected these questions as dispositive and not others.  Consider the historical setting.  Two close family groups split, and with the split agreed to separate their properties and operations thereof.  Tensions continued.... The parties for good and sufficient reasons selected the three circumscribed questions noted above as dispositive.  The test we were left to use in our deliberations was developed for mineral owner-lessee disputes.  It really does not accommodate disputes between co-owners.  The panel has given its considered answer.  But something seems wrong with this picture.  What has been accomplished?  After much aggravation and expenditure of valuable time and resources that could have gone to beneficial business purposes, it would appear from my vantage point, admittedly through a glass darkly, that the parties are pretty much where they started: With the Roosth operators.  Did we help?  I hope so, but I doubt it.  Ultimately I suspect this is really not an oil and gas case."

[opinion continues]

From Genecov Group, Inc. v. Roosth Production Co., 144 S.W.3d 546 (Tex.App.)