> And, candidly, as a lawyer, this is part of why I love arbitration. It's a lot less formal. It's more about just getting to the right result without all the u

> And, candidly, as a lawyer, this is part of why I love arbitration. It's a lot less formal. It's more about just getting to the right result without all the unnecessary pomp and circumstance. Sure, arbitration is fine -- give two parties more options to come to an agreement. But mandatory binding arbitration that explicitly contractually removes any way to resort to a full court? That's what I think is wrong. If two parties don't come to an agreement in arbitration then they should always have the option to go to full court and incur the costs and headaches of doing so. Having that option would, I think, make arbitration far more desirable than it currently is.