From Lexology, Liz Kramer discusses recent academic studies on arbitration that found arbitration is faster and cheaper than litigation but also that some employment cases never make it to arbitration. Liz writes:
The data came from two sources: public data that the State of California requires arbitration providers to file, as well as a cache of data gathered by the New York Times. After reviewing the data, the authors conclude:
1) arbitration is faster that court litigation and generally more affordable for plaintiffs;
2) there was no surge in arbitration filings after the Concepcion decision, but there is evidence of at least a few mass-individual filings (same law firm filing 200 – 1300 individual arbitrations against the same defendant in the same time period);
3) plaintiffs win at a lower rate in arbitration than in court, and pro se plaintiffs “struggle mightily” in arbitration; and
4) the concerns about “repeat-player bias” are “well-founded” — but those repeat players are both defendants who appear often, as well as plaintiffs-side law firms who appear often. …
[a different study]
More surprisingly, “U.S. respondents overwhelmingly described arbitration as on average cheaper than litigation, with 49.19% describing it as Slightly Cheaper and a further 22.70% describing it as Much Cheaper.” (61). Read this article if you want to compare perceptions of how well arbitration works and is supported in this country with perceptions in other countries.
Read the full story at Studies Conclude Arbitration Is A Black Hole With Repeat Player Bias (But Also Faster & Cheaper Than Court) – Lexology
