Is Adjudication a Public Good?: 'Overcrowded Courts' and the Private-Sector Alternative of Arbitration

This article was published in  Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 14, 2013
 It asks which disputing parties deserve subsidized adjudication which should have to pay market rates for it? Our society’s failure to confront this important question allows all disputing parties to pursue the subsidy for themselves. The result is that parties who do not deserve the subsidy — parties who should be paying market rates for adjudication — are consuming public resources that would be better spent on parties who do deserve the subsidy.

One way to end the public subsidy for cases that do not deserve it is for courts to charge the parties to such a case a fee high enough to reimburse the court for its costs of adjudicating the case. Such “user fees” have been proposed by several thoughtful commentators. This article assesses those proposals and suggests that user fees would make litigation look more like arbitration. This article concludes by considering the possibility that the public-sector court system and private arbitration organizations could compete in the market for unsubsidized adjudication and in the market for subsidized adjudication. In short, this article places discussions of overcrowded courts and court user fees in the context of a society — our society — with a strong private-sector alternative to our courts.

When Parties Agree, Should the Arbitrator Do What the Parties Want?

Parties whose dispute is in arbitration often disagree on the process the arbitrator should follow to resolve the dispute.  But suppose the parties agree.  Does the arbitrator have to use the process the parties want? 

This important topic is highlighted by Barbara Reeves Neal a JAMS Arbitrator.  She rightly points that two or more of these principles can come into conflict:

1. Arbitration is a delegated and defined power to make certain types of decisions in certain prescribed ways.
2. The arbitrator’s powers derive from parties’ contract; the arbitrator is not entitled to do anything unauthorized by parties.
3. The arbitrator has an obligation to the process of arbitration itself and must preserve the integrity and fairness of the process, while advancing the fair and efficient resolution of matters submitted for decision.
4. It is the duty of the arbitrator to ensure a timely resolution and that the counsel and the parties understand the time and cost implications of potential time delays or adjournment they seek.
5. The arbitrator should set meaningful limitations in order to preserve the efficiency and integrity of the arbitration process.

In fact, it is likely that the first two principles (party autonomy) will occasionally conflict with the last three principles which relate to the arbitrator's desire to have a good arbitration process ("integrity" "fairness" "timely" "efficiency").

If the parties agree that they want an arbitration with more discovery than the arbitrator thinks wise, or more continuances than the arbitrator thinks wise, should the arbitrator grant the parties' joint requests?  Generally, yes, in my view.   Arbitrator Barbara Reeves Neal's views are here.

Arbitration and Assimilation

Arbitration and Assimilation

Arbitration is not necessarily antithetical to the assimilation of different groups. While intra-group arbitration allows for various groups to separate into their own cocoons, general arbitration can be the handmaiden of assimilation. Both types of arbitration deserve to flourish.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=931708