The recent controversy over attempts by organized lawyerdom to ban or restrict predispute arbitration contracts led to a Wall Street Journal editorial (“Party at Ralph’s”, Nov. 7) which in turn drew forth the following letter to the editor from David S. Rowley of San Diego (Nov. 14):
Although you got the lawyer-money connection in the Democratic anti-arbitration strategy exactly right, you skipped over the bodacious arrogance inherent in the phrase “alternative dispute resolution.” ADR is lawyer-speak for anything other than a lawsuit, making a lawsuit the “regular” way. ADR gets about the same treatment from the bar as “alternative” medicine gets from doctors.
Every time people sit down and reason together, some lawyer is losing money. Why not ban that? A lawsuit is the most expensive, time-consuming, disruptive and unpredictable of all dispute resolution models. That so many people are so quick to sue suggests that the lawyers have sold the masses on the “regular” way. What a tragic commentary on our times.
Earlier: Oct. 18. More thoughts on arbitration: ADRQueen, Oct. 16.
6 Comments
It’s now “of the lawyers, by the lawyers and for the lawyers.”
The real reason Plaintiffs’ lawyers oppose ADR is they love the unpredictability of juries. Companies pay larger settlements b/c they have no idea if a jury is going to act rationally. Lawyers get paid plenty in ADR, but Plaintiffs want more.
Ask any corporate counsel about how much ADR costs. The costs these days in ADR are nearly what they are in traditional litigation.
While I am generally a supporter of ADR, I am concerned about employers using ADR to bypass civil rights laws.
Seems to create a very one-sided situation, not to mention bad public policy.
The irony is that lawyers who oppose arbitration for others require it for their own clients. When I signed on as a client with John O’Quinn’s law firm, I was required to sign an agreement that any dispute be taken to arbitration. Since I became a client after the dispute he just lost, I wonder if that dispute prompted him to require arbitration.
In practice, arbitration is usually quicker but not cheaper than traditional litigation. You generally have to prepare your case just like you are going to trial and you often have just as much discovery.
[…] (Justinian’s post also repeats the canard that because the anti-arbitration bills only ban mandatory arbitration, consumers haven’t lost any choice because they can still arbitrate if they like. Of course, we’ve repeatedly demonstrated why pre-commitments to arbitration are necessary for honest consumers to realize the maximum benefits from arbitration, and Justinian’s failure to acknowledge that argument, as well as his failure to account for the refutation of the Business Week story, further demonstrate the bad faith of the litigation lobby’s campaign against consumer choice.) […]