Arizona Attorney, Vol. 41, p. 32, 2005
7 Pages Posted: 10 Dec 2010
Date Written: 2005
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: 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