Nonconsensual + Nonbinding = Nonsensical? Reconsidering Court-Connected Arbitration Programs
Schmitz, Amy J.
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Most recently cited by1
- 2013Delaware Coalition for Open Government, Inc. v. Strine 3d Cir.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
Policymakers have adopted programs mandating parties to submit their disputes to court-connected arbitration hoping to garner efficiency benefits commonly associated with contractual Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) arbitration. Mandatory nonbinding arbitration, however, is ill-equipped for this task because it lacks the consensual core and finality of FAA arbitration. Instead, it often adds an inefficient layer to the litigation process and may harm those least able to protect themselves from coerced settlements or burdens of protracted litigation.