So we turn to the latest perspective in "Is Justice Served?" from the L.A. Times. Written by a lawyer with 20-years' experience, it refers to arbitration as "private judging" which is "largely unregulated and tilted." Indeed, it names various arbitration companies, slams former judges who are now arbitrators, and labels it "the pay-for-justice phenomenon."

The three points of the article are that (1) arbitration leads to cases resolved out of the public view, (2) judges are leaving $150k/year public service jobs for high paying arbitration salaries, and (3) large companies are using arbitration to diminish hard-won consumer rights.

One concern was that arbitrators have "repeat user bias" — meaning that companies (or lawyers) who send an arbitrator a lot of business get an edge by currying favor with the arbitrator through a constant stream of business.

In two paragraphs, the author suggests that privacy and the reduction of rules are benefits of arbitration.

A Stanford study is cited for the finding that 55% of consumer contract contain an arbitration clause.

We thank Victoria Pynchon of Beverly Hills, Ca for bringing this article to our attention. She has a brief blog reply to the article here. Visit Victoria's Settle It Now Negotiation Blog.
http://floridaarbitrationlaw.com/blogs/index.php?blog=5&title=l_a_times_slams_arbitration_as_private_j&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1