The Role of Arbitrators in AC-Land: An Unscientific 2+2 Poll

[John Kilduff]

With all the references made regarding arbitrators in various AC threads, today I started to wonder what the role of arbitration firms would really be like in AC-Land.

Would arbitration as a method of conflict resolution become more popular if AC were to come to pass? Or might it become less popular than it is today, or stay about the same in terms of popularity?

I am not aware of any personal friend or family member who has had a dispute resolved via arbitration. My guess is that arbitration as a dispute resolution tool, while occasionally utilized today, really isn't all that widely used, relatively speaking. I could be wrong on this.

The sense I get from AC-ists on this forum is that arbitration would become quite a widely used resolution tool if AC were to come to pass.

So what is your guess? And why?

Thanks for voting and for commenting.

[tomdemaine]

I think it'd be used quite often early on until people realised that their nightmares about all vs all were unfounded and they didn't need it. Then it'd be more efficient to do business without them but with people and firms who have built up trust. Arbitration firms would still probably be useful for massive contracts or international deals but outside of that they'd probably be used less and less or be rolled into an insurance payment.

[RedBean]

Assuming it being a replacement for the civil and criminal court system, it would obviously be immensely more popular as that caseload has to be handled somehow.

And it would probably be much better for everyone involved, except the lawyers.....

I used arbitration with the insurance company after Katrina rather than a lawsuit that could have gotten expensive and drawn out for 2+ years (some folks are still in court today).....and it was resolved within 3 months, and we both came out satisfied with a surprisingly fair result....neither or us had lawyers involved, and the grand total cost was $500 for the arbitration service.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming it being a replacement for the civil and criminal court system, it would obviously be immensely more popular as that caseload has to be handled somehow.

[/ QUOTE ]

[adios]

Believe it or not arbitration is an integral part of the current judicial system now in many, many places in the U.S. regarding civil court matters.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming it being a replacement for the civil and criminal court system, it would obviously be immensely more popular as that caseload has to be handled somehow.


[/ QUOTE ]

Totally agree.

[ QUOTE ]
And it would probably be much better for everyone involved, except the lawyers.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know why you would think that. Attorneys play an integral roll in arbitration just as they do litigation.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And it would probably be much better for everyone involved, except the lawyers.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know why you would think that. Attorneys play an integral roll in arbitration just as they do litigation.

[/ QUOTE ] Probably because it would, while a lot more popular than now, not be as popular as the courts are now. If people can't externalize the costs because government pays for a big portion of the court cases, they will have added incentive to figure out their problems between themselves, without outside arbitration.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Probably because it would not be as popular as the courts are now

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you might overestimate the popularity of courts. While there might be a large number of cases filed each year, the number that actually go to trial is very very small. I suspect this wouldn't change a whole lot with an arbitration-only system. A party would file a complaint to make the other party aware of the dispute case. This would get both parties more serious about settlement (assuming they have already tried settling.) Many of the filed cases will be withdrawn because the parties settle without having to go through the expense of a hearing.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And it would probably be much better for everyone involved, except the lawyers.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know why you would think that. Attorneys play an integral roll in arbitration just as they do litigation.

[/ QUOTE ] Probably because it would, while a lot more popular than now, not be as popular as the courts are now. If people can't externalize the costs because government pays for a big portion of the court cases, they will have added incentive to figure out their problems between themselves, without outside arbitration.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a good point, and one which hadn't occurred to me.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
And it would probably be much better for everyone involved, except the lawyers.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know why you would think that. Attorneys play an integral roll in arbitration just as they do litigation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just based on my experience with it, with a major insurer, and we did some form of arbitration with no lawyers, and it only cost $500 total, and we split the cost $250 each, and it was FAN-TASTIC not having to pay some donkey who knew less than me to act on my behalf just because he had the proper papers to show a judge to allow him to speak in the courtroom.