4 ms·
Arbitration is also a lot cheaper than going to court, so companies would save money on arbitration even if arbiters were slightly less likely to side with them
by daveFNbuck 8y ago
Arbitration is also a lot cheaper than going to court, so companies would save money on arbitration even if arbiters were slightly less likely to side with them than courts.
- learc83 8y agoAssuming arbitration is also cheaper for potential plantifs, and assuming a truly neutral arbitrator, then that's not likely true. Court costs are a greater barrier to the side that doesn't have a full time legal team.
- marcoperaza 8y agoNot exactly. Most plaintiffs attorneys are working on contingency, i.e. a percent of the judgment. Going to court costs the plaintiffs themselves nothing. They only need to have a case with a decent enough chance of winning or settling for enough to make it worth the plaintiff attorney’s time. Also, almost no one has in house litigators. So companies being sued also have to shell out for counsel by the hour.
- learc83 8y ago>Most plaintiffs attorneys are working on contingency. I very much doubt that. The vast majority of disputes that would end up in arbitration are smaller contract disputes, not personal injury claims. >Also, almost no one has in house litigators. They have counsel on retainer, and some companies still do. All big companies would if forcing customers and employees to accept arbitration wasn't an option.