subject: Arbitrator Or Trial Court? [print this page] The ultimate goal of an arbitration hearing is actually similar to the goal of Trial court, namely declaring a winner of the conflict and their reward, but there are some very important differences which should influence your decision whether or not to use an arbitrator. This article will explore the differences between going to court vs. using an arbitrator.
One distinguishing characteristic of the arbitrator vs. the court system is the formalities, or more accurately put, the lack of formalities. Although there are exceptions to the rule, all-in-all, arbitration cases are usually much less formal than the trial court procedures. There are usually no discussions regarding which evidence can be presented and what is allowed to go "on record" during arbitrated disputes. Both sides are given the opportunity to present their arguments and their evidence, and then present counter-arguments and then the arbitrator makes a decision.
An attractive offshoot of skipping a lot of the formalities of regular court cases is speed, arbitration tends to be a much quicker way of dealing with disputes than trial court. And naturally, arbitration tends to cost a lot less too.
Important: Although arbitration cases are most often informal, compared to trial court, depending of various factors they can sometimes also be conducted in a pretty formal fashion. Even so, an arbitrated case will still most likely end up being speedier and cheaper than its trial court counterpart is.
Another distinguishing quality to arbitration is privacy. Usually arbitration hearings are held behind closed doors without the press or any other interested or otherwise nosy people being present. That can be a big plus for companies who don't want a court case harming their reputation or brand name. The privacy factor is also good for individuals who simply don't want to be in the public eye.
As opposed to trial court, arbitration requires compliance by both parties. That means that before any arbitrating happens both parties need to agree that they want to 'be arbitrated' (so-to-speak).
I just want to point out to you that although everyone involved involved in arbitration needs to agree to it previously, not everyone who engages in arbitration are happy about being there. The paradox is not very complicated, actually many people have agreed to settle any disagreement which might occur with a particular organization through an arbitrator. See, in many contracts that business, banks, and other organizations present to those who seek to engage in business with them have clauses which state that the signer agrees to settle any dispute, that may come up, through arbitration exclusively. Have you ever agreed to arbitration without knowing it? It might be time to start reading the small print.
An arbitrators' duty is only to assign the award to the winning party, but an arbitrator does not have the power to administer punishment to the losing party, as opposed to trial court.
As you may have understood from the previous sentence, arbitrators only deal with civil cases which do not involve criminal activities. An arbitrator has no authority to make a decision in criminal cases.
All types of dispute resolution processes have their own unique benefits. When deciding on one that is right for you it is important to consider what is most important for dealing with your specific situation.
