Absence of a Jury
Since arbitrators are legal professionals who are trained in these matters, they are experienced enough to focus on the law and the facts presented. Juries, on the other hand, can be influenced by emotion. Furthermore, juries are more likely to award plaintiffs with extremely high damages.
2. Confidentiality
A case in public court can be devastating to an organization. With arbitration, however, proceedings between the parties are conducted confidentially. Therefore, unwanted media attention is kept to a minimum. This can be invaluable to an organization that is extremely well-known.
3. Transient (Possibly)
Since rules of evidence do not apply in arbitration, they can be brought in without the need to be sure the documents, …show more content…
However, as also stated previously, there have only been 5 states that have been forced to do so.
While the above are the “pros” for arbitration, there are also some drawbacks:
1. Arbitration is not always brief and/or less expensive
Since arbitration is, in fact, a much more informal process than litigation, it could potentially result in an inefficient process. Some arbitrations also have adopted formal procedural rules, which result in higher costs. Also, arbitrator fees could run into the thousands per day, in addition to attorney fees and damage rewards.
2. Arbitrations can be fickle
Given the informal process, arbitrators could rule in favor of what they deem fair, rather than what the law specifically states.
3. Restricted Grounds for Appeal
Note that this is both a “pro” and a “con” for arbitrations. An arbitrator’s decision is difficult to overturn and often impossible to appeal to a court.
4. State and Federal Law
These laws can limit the reach of an arbitration agreement. Some claims, for example cannot be arbitrated (such as a claim filed with the EEOC or a workers’ compensation
Since arbitrators are legal professionals who are trained in these matters, they are experienced enough to focus on the law and the facts presented. Juries, on the other hand, can be influenced by emotion. Furthermore, juries are more likely to award plaintiffs with extremely high damages.
2. Confidentiality
A case in public court can be devastating to an organization. With arbitration, however, proceedings between the parties are conducted confidentially. Therefore, unwanted media attention is kept to a minimum. This can be invaluable to an organization that is extremely well-known.
3. Transient (Possibly)
Since rules of evidence do not apply in arbitration, they can be brought in without the need to be sure the documents, …show more content…
However, as also stated previously, there have only been 5 states that have been forced to do so.
While the above are the “pros” for arbitration, there are also some drawbacks:
1. Arbitration is not always brief and/or less expensive
Since arbitration is, in fact, a much more informal process than litigation, it could potentially result in an inefficient process. Some arbitrations also have adopted formal procedural rules, which result in higher costs. Also, arbitrator fees could run into the thousands per day, in addition to attorney fees and damage rewards.
2. Arbitrations can be fickle
Given the informal process, arbitrators could rule in favor of what they deem fair, rather than what the law specifically states.
3. Restricted Grounds for Appeal
Note that this is both a “pro” and a “con” for arbitrations. An arbitrator’s decision is difficult to overturn and often impossible to appeal to a court.
4. State and Federal Law
These laws can limit the reach of an arbitration agreement. Some claims, for example cannot be arbitrated (such as a claim filed with the EEOC or a workers’ compensation