Arbitration is typically cast as a more cost-effective manner of dispute resolution than litigation (i.e., the submission of a dispute to the court system for resolution by a single judge or jury). But in recent years there has been a growing sentiment that anticipated cost-efficiencies in arbitrations have been diminished or lost entirely because of the manner in which arbitrations are being conducted. Complaints have been made that, rather than being a streamlined method of dispute resolution, arbitrations have been perverted into litigations, with costly and extensive discovery and prolonged hearings, with the only functional distinction being that the dispute is resolved by a paid jurist or jurists. Criticism of and concern about the protracted and expensive nature of arbitration has been voiced with increasing regularity.
This is an unfortunate trend. When conducted properly, arbitration offers myriad advantages and cost-efficiencies as compared to litigation. These include, but are not limited to: 1) input into the selection of the tribunal, which provides the parties an opportunity to choose a trier of fact who may have knowledge and experience relevant to the dispute; 2) speedier resolution of the dispute; 3) substantial cost savings given such factors as diminished discovery and motion practice; 4) greater finality attendant to awards than judgments given the limited ability to challenge the viability of an award. Such advantages and cost benefits, however, are being lost to litigants.
