The Sales Pitch
"Oh, arbitration is a better way to go because it saves the parties expensive litigation costs." Nonsense, it just makes your effort at getting justice that much more risky and difficult. You'll usualy find such arbitration clauses on real estate contracts and one way corporate agreements from telecoms, cable corporations, auto dealers...and well, you get the picture.
You'll save time. You'll save money. It's faster. It's more streamlined. It's a lot of BS and simply makes the life of the lawyers involved easier. It also makes the arbitrator a god.
The arbitration process is filled with lawyers who usually know each other, including the arbitrators. You'll have no way of knowing if an arbitrator is cozy with a particular lawyer, defendant or plaintiff or holding a grudge against the same. You won't have a transcript of the proceedings. Any errors or obvious arbitrator bias will not be recorded for your protection in disputing an error. Evidence and dishonesty of parties and witnesses can be arbitrarily considered or disregarded at the whim of the arbitrator. The process could make a just claim an expensive and heart wrenching lesson in justice or what some lawyers cynically refer to as just ice.
Don't be misled by false claims that arbitration is a less expensive alternative to litigation in a court of law - it's a lie!
The costs and the process are nearly identical if not exactly the same. Witnesses, depositions, discovery and preparation are identical. So what's the difference? The difference is it's easier for the lawyers and the arbitrator. The hearing is held in some legal office in a less formal atmosphere. There is no transcript and the legal or judicial rules are lax. The really big difference, however, is that you will not have a jury of your peers - giving the arbitrator the power to ignore evidence, testimoney, reasonableness and rule on his "gut" feeling or simply his or her own personal bias. In a court you have legal protections against arbitrary decisions, not so in arbitration.
Having been in both forums I am confident that the rights of all the parties are protected in a court of law, however, the notion of having a jury sitting as the trier of the facts and rendering a majority decision strikes fear into the souless corporatioins who try to intimidate us into settleing disputes in arbitration. Trust your fellow citizen before the well heeled, high priced lawyers, arbitrators and judges.
It isn't that lawyers, judges or arbitrators are bad people or posessed of nefarious intent, it is simply a case of their being out of touch, generally speaking. A lawyer who earns in a day what most people earn in a week or more has a difficult time understanding the struggles of the average working class John or Jane Doe. It's not about prejudging your lawyer, judge or arbitrator - it's about trusting in people like yourself who have a better ability at putting themselves in your own shoes.
Carl W. Lemieux
Editor
www.publicadvocate.com