National Law Review: on why some plaintiff lawyers hate arbitration agreements

March 21, 2019: National Law Review Comment, on why some plaintiff lawyers hate arbitration agreements:

“As everyone knows, plaintiffs’ lawyers really, really hate arbitration agreements – and, therefore, so do their many allies in the California legislature.  The lawyers usually say it’s because of the confidentiality associated with such proceedings or because of the so-called “repeat-player phenomenon” in which arbitrators allegedly tend to favor institutional parties more than individuals or because of a half dozen other reasons…but the actual reason that they really, really hate arbitration is because arbitrators tend to make reasonable monetary awards – and juries can’t always be counted on to do that.

In a 2011 Cornell University ILR School study comparing employment arbitration with jury trial outcomes, the overall median damage award in arbitration cases was between 85 and 90 percent lower than the median damage award in jury trials.  That is why plaintiffs’ lawyers (who share often 50-50 in their clients’ recovery) really, really hate arbitration.”

Referred by Jason Waxman

See also USAC

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest
Join our newsletter and get 20% discount
Promotion nulla vitae elit libero a pharetra augue