Lawyer Views on Mandatory Arbitration

Arizona Attorney, Vol. 41, p. 32, 2005

7 Pages Posted: 10 Dec 2010  

Roselle Wissler

Arizona State University (ASU) - Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law

Bob Dauber

Arizona State University (ASU)

Date Written: 2005

Abstract

This article summarizes some of the key findings from a survey of Arizona lawyers regarding Arizona's court-connected arbitration system. Most lawyers who had represented clients in arbitration thought the process and award were fair. Their ratings of the arbitrators’ level of preparation and knowledge of the law and arbitration procedures, however, were less favorable. A majority of lawyers thought either that arbitration should remain mandatory for cases below the current jurisdictional limit or that a different ADR process should be made mandatory. A majority of lawyers favored retaining most of the basic components of the current arbitration system. But a majority favored changes in arbitrator service, assignment, and compensation. The lawyers appeared to be skeptical about court-connected arbitration's ability to provide a more efficient and effective dispute resolution process for smaller cases.

Keywords: arbitration, alternative dispute resolution, empirical research

Suggested Citation

Wissler, Roselle and Dauber, Bob, Lawyer Views on Mandatory Arbitration (2005). Arizona Attorney, Vol. 41, p. 32, 2005. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1723257

Roselle Wissler (Contact Author)

Arizona State University (ASU) - Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law ( email )

Box 877906
Tempe, AZ 85287-7906
United States

Bob Dauber

Arizona State University (ASU) ( email )

Farmer Building 440G PO Box 872011
Tempe, AZ 85287
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
15
Abstract Views
520