All the facts are finally out. Research reinforces that arbitration is strongly preferred by consumers over litigation, and that outcomes in arbitration are virtually the same as in court, Roger Haydock said in a statement on the National Arbitration Forum website.
A new white paper Report, Arbitration – A Good Deal for Consumers: A Response to Public Citizen (Professor Peter B. Rutledge, April 2008), presents compelling empirical evidence that debunks the sensational claims published by Public Citizen in September 2007. The Report concludes, "There is only one little problem with the Public Citizen Report – it is wrong, both on the facts and in its ultimate conclusions." The Report also explains how arbitration benefits everyone – consumers, businesses, taxpayers, and our justice system.
Managing Director Roger Haydock said: "We encourage a broad national discussion on how to improve our civil justice process - based on actual facts and real data. The truth is that consumers prevail at a rate that is greater than or equal to litigation when comparing similar cases. The reality is that arbitration is a very fair system to resolve legal disputes - for everyone."
Key findings from a National Survey of Likely Voters (Public Opinion Strategies and Benenson Strategy Group, December 2007) support that arbitration has become the preferred way for consumers and businesses to resolve legal disputes without going to court. The study of registered voters likely to vote in the 2008 election found that nearly all (82%) chose arbitration to settle a serious dispute with a company; only 15% chose litigation.
"Americans want and prefer arbitration over litigation," said Haydock. "Arbitration is an ideal way to reform and improve our justice system: It saves parties a lot of time, money, and aggravation and reduces the burden on our overworked judiciary. It saves taxpayers money by reducing the need for more judges and courthouses."
For more facts on arbitration read the Benefits of Arbitration Report.












1 comments:
Assuming this was a truly random poll, this only tells me the American public has a lot to learn about arbitration. Sadly, they may have to learn the hard way that it's NOT in their favor, and can be very expensive. The article "No Lawyers Please" was particularly misleading because it implied people don't need a lawyer in arbitration. Then they show up and face corporate legal teams, and there they are on their own. In Calif. where arbitration decisions are public, consumers lost up against credit card co's 95% of the time. In many new home purchases and home warranties, arbitraiton is mandated to be doney by a company that was run by a dibarred attorney. The homeowners repeatedly report that the arbitrators refused to consier their evidence, awarded them either nothing, or pennies on the dollar, etc. Arbitration that is privately run by the industry has a huge inherent bias, and hides complaints so that other consumers can't find out about problems. Sounds like a sweet deal for corporations, but a raw deal for consumers. How about asking them after they've been through arbitration if they prefer it? I bet the answers will be vastly different.
Post a Comment