Litigation partner Michael S. Oberman’s article, “'The Other Shoe': Are Agreements Narrowing Judicial Review Enforceable?”, appears on the cover of the May 2013 issue of Alternatives, the publication of the CPR International Institute for Dispute Prevention & Resolution. Oberman begins with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Hall Street Assoc. LLC v. Mattel Inc., which held that parties may not by agreement expand the scope of judicial review of arbitration awards under the Federal Arbitration Act (for example, by providing that courts will review an award for errors of law); the Court held that the statutory grounds set out by Congress in the FAA are exclusive, although the Court observed that broader review might be available for cases controlled by state law and not the FAA (primarily cases that do not implicate interstate commerce). Oberman traced how state courts have been responding to Hall Street in his 2011 article, “The Hall Street Parade: State Courts Step Out and Consider Expanded Review of Arbitration Awards,” 4:3 N.Y. Dispute Resolution Lawyer 23 (Fall 2011). The current article examines the flip side: may parties by agreement narrow—or even waive—all or some steps of judicial review of arbitration awards? The article surveys and summarizes the decisions to date by federal and state courts that have addressed this issue, noting that the ultimate answer will need to come from the U.S. Supreme Court.