The flaw in the analogy is that the judge's resigna- tion does not deprive litigants of an opportunity to seek reconsideration of his decisions. Motions to reconsider are simply directed to another judge. The result would be a gap in the system of ar- bitral justice that would make very little sense that we can see. Not no sense. Concern about ex parte communications with arbitrators strikes us as a better reason for barring such communica- tions than for denying arbitrators all power to revisit their awards.
Arbitrators are no more infallible than judges.
The arbitration award says that Jackson has 60 days to complete a rehabilitation program. But many drug-rehabilitation programs have long waiting lists. The existence of such loopholes undermines the rationale for the doctrine because it tempts the parties to engage in ex parte contacts and because much alteration can be achieved in the name of interpretation. Since the case for the exceptions seems stronger than the case for the rule, perhaps the time has come to discard the rule. Were the doc- trine as pointless as it seems to us to be, then probably either the rules of the various arbitration associations or arbitration clauses in particular contracts would authorize reconsideration.