Nonconsensual Nonbinding = Nonsensical? Reconsidering Court-Connected Arbitration Programs

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 10, pp. 587-625, 2009

U of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-01

41 Pages Posted: 6 Feb 2010 Last revised: 11 Feb 2013

See all articles by Amy J. Schmitz

Amy J. Schmitz

Ohio State University Moritz College of Law; Cyberjustice Lab; University of Missouri School of Law

Date Written: February 5, 2010

Abstract

Policymakers have adopted programs mandating parties to submit their disputes to court connected arbitration hoping to garner efficiency benefits commonly associated with contractual Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) arbitration. Mandatory nonbinding arbitration, however, is ill-equipped for this task because it lacks the consensual core and finality of FAA arbitration. Instead, it often adds an inefficient layer to the litigation process and may harm those least able to protect themselves from coerced settlements or burdens of protracted litigation.

Keywords: arbitration, contracts, consumer rights, consumer law, dispute resolution

JEL Classification: K12, K41, K30, K10

Suggested Citation

Schmitz, Amy J., Nonconsensual Nonbinding = Nonsensical? Reconsidering Court-Connected Arbitration Programs (February 5, 2010). Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 10, pp. 587-625, 2009, U of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-01, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1548667

Amy J. Schmitz (Contact Author)

Ohio State University Moritz College of Law ( email )

55 West 12th Avenue
Columbus, OH 43210
United States

Cyberjustice Lab ( email )

Montreal
Canada

University of Missouri School of Law ( email )

Missouri Avenue & Conley Avenue
Columbia, MO MO 65211
United States
573-882-5969 (Phone)

Do you want regular updates from SSRN on Twitter?

Paper statistics

Downloads
71
Abstract Views
945
rank
435,255
PlumX Metrics