If you asked me 20 years ago when this article was written, and the practice less commonplace, I'd have been more optimistic and open minded about it. And I ag

If you asked me 20 years ago when this article was written, and the practice less commonplace, I'd have been more optimistic and open minded about it. And I agree that contract disagreements between parties can be more easily settled through a 3rd party with concurrence of those involved. But this assumes that both parties have roughly equal resources and can't game the venue. Our increasing use of private law (including HOAs and similar types of agreements listed as examples) seems to have absorbed many of the drawbacks of the systems they supersede while not having that "pomp" that socially-ingrained Law with a capital 'L' has surrounding it; that which otherwise empowers the middle-managers of the practice to sometimes interpret the law in the favor of those with fewer resources. In private law it's the financial bottom line (who's paying for this service?), personal whims, groupthink-- forces unchecked because the practitioners or those coerced into it have no expectations it should be different. As far as I know, we have no public arbitration services that are paid for by taxes or charity for the benefit of those who choose to use it as an alternative to the state-based justice system.