U.S. Chamber of Commerce link

Arbitration/ADR

Arbitration and other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes can have advantages over filing lawsuits. Using litigation to resolve disputes is an expensive and time consuming process – taking years to move through the courts, often requiring expensive legal counsel and consuming significant amounts of time for defendants and plaintiffs alike.

To engage in arbitration, two parties involved in a dispute identify an agreed-upon individual to serve as a neutral third party to review the facts and circumstances of the dispute and to issue a ruling to resolve the conflict. The arbitrator is impartial, independent and knowledgeable about the law, typically a retired judge or experienced neutral attorney.

Virtually any type of dispute between private individuals or entities can be addressed by arbitration, including, for example, contract, real estate, employment, and tort disputes.

An agreement to enter into arbitration or other form of ADR can be set out at the beginning of a relationship between two parties through contract language specifying an ADR process in the event of a dispute. Such an up-front agreement can be advantageous, avoiding the dynamic of a dispute arising and then one party forcing the issue into the courts due to a perceived strategic benefit of litigation over ADR.

Issue Resources: Arbitration - ADR

About the Testimony: Hearing on "Arbitration: Is it Fair When Forced?"

Victor E. Schwartz, a partner at Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP, describes his testimony on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary's October 13, 2011 hearing on "Arbitration: Is it Fair When Forced?"

Source: U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform
Released: Mar 22, 2012

Testimony of Victor Schwartz Before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on "Arbitration: Is It Fair When Forced?"

On October 13, 2011, Victor E. Schwartz, a partner at Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP, testified on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on "Arbitration: Is it Fair When Forced?" LEARN MORE »

Download Now

Consumer Arbitration Before the American Arbitration Association: Preliminary Report

Analysis of California Consumer Arbitration Data

Analysis of California Consumer Arbitration DataThis memorandum was prepared to summarize the results of certain analyses performed with respect to National Arbitration Forum (“NAF”) data disclosed pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 1281.96. These analyses focus on disposition statistics of NAF cases and make use of a data set also used by Public Citizen in the paper “The Arbitration Trap: How Credit Card Companies Ensnare Consumers,” published in September 2007.

 

110th Congress: Trial Lawyer Assault on Arbitration Through Legislative Efforts/Earmarks

Arbitration - A Good Deal for Consumers: A Response to Public Citizen

Arbitration - A Good Deal for Consumers: A Response to Public CitizenThe group Public Citizen recently released a report entitled “The Arbitration Trap: How Credit Card Companies Ensnare Consumers (September 2007)." At bottom, the Report claims to show how arbitration is “stacked against consumers” and is “rife with problems for consumers.”  There is only one little problem with the Public Citizen Report – it is wrong, both on the facts and in its ultimate conclusions. This white paper provides lawmakers and their staffs with a counterpoint to the Public Citizen Report and sets forth the case, grounded in empirical research, for why arbitration is a good deal for consumers.

ILR President Lisa A. Rickard offers opening remarks at the Arbitration Press Conference

ILR President Lisa A. Rickard delivers her opening remarks at the Arbitration Press Conference on April 2, 2008.

Source: Institute for Legal Reform
Released: Apr 2, 2008

Key Findings from a National Survey of Likely Voters

Key Findings from a National Survey of Likely VotersOn behalf of the Institute for Legal Reform, Public Opinion Strategies and The Benenson Strategy Group conducted a national telephone survey of 800 registered voters who say they are likely to vote in the 2008 election. The survey was conducted December 17-20, 2007 and has a margin of error of + 3.5%.

 

Pollster Bill McInturff discusses arbitration survey

At the Arbitration Press Conference on April 2, 2008, pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies speaks about the results of the survey of likely voters he conducted along with Joel Benenson of Benenson Strategy Group.

Source: Institute for Legal Reform
Released: Apr 2, 2008