The notion that binding arbitration is more expensive than a jury trial or biased towards business is nonsense. Local judges require cases be arbitrated when both parties are contractually bound to do so. Binding arbitration is the express lane of dispute resolution.
Congress has long encouraged arbitration as a quicker, faster, and less expensive means for consumers and businesses to settle their disputes. If a consumer wants his dispute decided on the facts he wants to be in front of an educated arbitration panel. If he wants to focus on emotion and down play the facts then he wants to be in front of a less educated jury. Licensed arbiters are required to have a greater knowledge of the subject matter in dispute than either a judge or jury.
Last week the Texas Supreme Court ruled that binding arbitration clauses are enforceable unless federal law specifically states otherwise. This simple case involving an alleged defect of a mobile home could and should have been resolved a long time ago. Instead, the plaintiff lawyer mounted a four-year legal challenge to have the case heard in court. Worst still, the client has paid considerably more in attorney fees than if the case had been arbitrated. Whos interest is the lawyer representing?