Arbitration’s Fall From Grace

Usually, I like to write my own headlines, but this one from the original story is too perfect to touch — that or I’m too tired. . . .

A good detailed article from In-House Counsel on why the arbitration fad’s been a disappointment to companies that had hoped it would be a magic bullet for rising litigation risks and costs.

Hate to say I told you so, but I’ve long been an arbitration skeptic for all of the reasons cited.

The reasons for the “fall from grace” include:

“Our company ended up investing more than a year’s worth of time and substantial legal fees simply to enforce in court our right not to have to go to court.”
“Arbitration offers virtually no appellate rights, no discovery rights and no provision for summary judgment.”
“We had three arbitrators billing us at $500 per hour . . . [A]t least in court the judge is paid for by the taxpayers.”
“[A]rbitrators tend to split their decisions.”
“Simply put, most arbitrators are not as good as most judges. Combine the number of tools available in trial that are not available in arbitration with the quality of decision making in a court setting, and arbitration appears penny wise, pound foolish.”

Not all experts quoted are equally negative, and the article provides a fair overview of the pros and cons of arbitration.

Read the whole story:Arbitration’s Fall From Grace

You’ll
find jobs in
London at Canary Wharf Jobs.com.