Law Commons^™

Trial And Error: Legislating Adr For Medical Malpractice Reform, Lydia Nussbaum

Scholarly Works

The U.S. healthcare system has a problem: hundreds of thousands of people die each year, and over a million are injured, by medical mistakes that could have been avoided. Furthermore, over ninety percent of these patients and their families never learn of the errors or receive redress. This problem persists, despite myriad reforms to the medical malpractice system, because of lawmakers' dominant focus on reducing providers' liability insurance costs. Reform objectives are beginning to change, however, and the vehicle for implementing these changes is alternative dispute resolution ("ADR"). Historically, legislatures deployed ADR to curb malpractice litigation and restrict patients' access …

Notes From A Quiet Corner: User Concerns About Reinsurance Arbitration – And Attendant Lessons For Selection Of Dispute Resolution Forums And Methods, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Arbitration between insurers and reinsurers – those who insure insurance companies – should logically run as smoothly as any arbitration process. Like the traditional commercial arbitration that drove enactment of the Federal Arbitration Act, reinsurance arbitration involves experienced actors in a confined industry in which the parties should be constructively aware of the rules, norms, customs and practices of the industry. But in spite of this, reinsurance arbitration experiences consistent problems of which the participants complain. This article reviews the complaints and exams possible solutions – including the possibility of arbitrating less and litigating more. Although these possible solutions would …

Hurrah For The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Consumer Arbitration As A Poster Child For Regulation, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

Drawing on economic, psychological and philosophical considerations, this Essay considers whether consumers should be "free" to "agree" to contractually trade their opportunity to litigate in a class action for the opportunity to bring an arbitration claim against a company. The Essay suggests that by looking at the CFPB's regulation through these three lenses, one sees that the regulation is desirable—even a poster child—for the potential value of regulation when market forces are not sufficient to protect individual or public interests.

The Trouble With Categories: What Theory Can Teach Us About The Doctrine-Skills Divide, Linda H. Edwards

Scholarly Works

We might not need another article decrying the doctrine/skills dichotomy. That conversation seems increasingly old and tired. But like it or not, in conversations about the urgent need to reform legal education, the dichotomy’s entailments confront us at every turn. Is there something more to be said? Perhaps surprisingly, yes. We teach our students to examine language carefully, to question received categories, and to understand legal questions in light of their history and theory. Yet when we talk about the doctrine/skills divide, we seem to forget our own instruction.

This article does not exactly take sides in the typical skills …

Tainted Love: An Increasingly Odd Arbitral Infatuation In Derogation Of Sound And Consistent Jurisprudence, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Lawyerless Dispute Resolution: Rethinking A Paradigm, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

Do participants in mediation and arbitration have attorneys? Do they need them? Although the phenomenon of pro se litigation has received substantial attention in recent years, few commentators or policymakers have focused on these questions. The failure to focus on the possible need for representation in mediation and arbitration is based on an often unstated premise that because ADR processes are purportedly non-adversarial or less adversarial than litigation, disputants need representation less in ADR than they do in litigation. This Article suggests that the failure to focus on the possible need for representation in mediation and arbitration is fundamentally misguided. …

Fixing The Mandatory Arbitration Problem: We Need The Arbitration Fairness Act Of 2009, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Mandating Minimum Quality In Mass Arbitration, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

The Supreme Court's decision in McMahon and its progeny has led many businesses and employers to embrace what was once deemed a localized, industry-specific practice. The "new" or "mass arbitration" only mildly resembles the traditional system employed by niches in industry for settling commercial matters among commercial actors. While the "old" system involved parties who were relatively equal in bargaining power and knowledge, these systems for mass arbitration lack a freely entered bargain and resemble more closely, contracts of adhesion. Privatized arbitration resolves issues of both statutory and substantive law, and there is a strong argument, given the inexperience of …

Keeping Arbitrations From Becoming Kangaroo Courts, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Arbitration has grown rapidly during the past 20 years. Particularly notable and problematic is the rapid onset of new or mass arbitration that has resulted from the judiciary's modern favorable attitude toward enforcement of arbitration clauses, even those imposed upon consumers, employees, small vendors, and debtors as part of a standardized contract of adhesion. In a separate article (See "Mandating Minimum Quality in Mass Arbitration," 76 U. Cin. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2007)), I present a more comprehensive list of what I regard as the necessary steps that must be taken to insure minimally acceptable quality and fairness in mass arbitration. …

In Defense Of Mandatory Arbitration (If Imposed On The Company), Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

Having spent much of her academic life battling companies' mandatory imposition of binding arbitration on consumers and employees, the author now switches gears. This Article contemplates whether mandatory binding arbitration is acceptable if imposed by the government on companies (governmental mandatory arbitration) rather than by companies on their employees and consumers (private mandatory arbitration). Specifically, the Article considers the possibility of statutes that would provide little guys (consumers and employees) with an opportunity to take their disputes to binding arbitration rather than litigation. If the little guys chose arbitration over litigation, post-dispute, companies would have to agree to such arbitration, …

Creeping Mandatory Arbitration: Is It Just?, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

This Article examines the phenomenon of mandatory binding arbitration, imposed on consumers and employees, and considers whether this type of dispute resolution serves or instead undermines justice. It is fairly easy to attack binding arbitration as unfair, for example pointing to the fact that it undermines rights to jury trial and to proceed in class actions. However, this Article seeks to examine the phenomenon of mandatory binding arbitration from a broader perspective, recognizing that it is inappropriate to assume that justice requires our existing system of litigation, with its class actions and jury trial. The Article concludes that while informal …

Using Arbitration To Eliminate Consumer Class Actions: Efficient Business Practice Or Unconscionable Abuse?, Jean R. Sternlight, Elizabeth J. Jensen

Scholarly Works

Companies are increasingly drafting arbitration clauses worded to prevent consumers from bringing class actions against them in either litigation or arbitration. If one looks at the form contracts she receives regarding her credit card, cellular phone, land phone, insurance policies, mortgage, and so forth, most likely, the majority of those contracts include arbitration clauses, and many of those include prohibitions on class actions. Companies are seeking to use these clauses to shield themselves from class action liability, either in court or in arbitration.

This article argues that while the unconscionability doctrine offers some protections, case-by-case adjudication is a costly means …

Arbitration, Unconscionability, And Equilibrium: The Return Of Unconscionability Analysis As A Counterweight To Arbitration Formalism, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

However incomplete, unaggressive, or sub-optimal, unconscionability analysis of arbitration agreements has made something of a comeback in the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century. Just as nature abhors a vacuum, water seeks to be level, and ecosystems work to retain environmental stability, the legal system has witnessed an incremental effort by lower courts to soften the rough edges of the Supreme Court's pro-arbitration jurisprudence through rediscovery of what might be called the “unconscionability norm”--a collective judicial view as to what aspects of an arbitration arrangement are too unfair to merit judicial enforcement. In rediscovering and reinvigorating the unconscionability norm …

The Rise And Spread Of Mandatory Arbitration As A Substitute For The Jury Trial, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

THE CIVIL JURY trial is fast disappearing from our legal landscape, and one important reason for its disappearance is the rapid growth of mandatory arbitration. Yet, the imposition of mandatory arbitration eliminates the civil jury, and often this elimination is not made through a knowing, voluntary, or intelligent waiver. As I have argued elsewhere in greater detail, unless federal courts are generally willing to abandon the Seventh Amendment "knowing/voluntary/intelligent" civil jury trial waiver standard, they need to significantly revise their approach to mandatory arbitration clauses. If a given state allows the civil jury trial right to be waived through a …

Forgetfulness, Fuzziness, Functionality, Fairness And Freedom, In Dispute Resolution, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Professor Subrin is a self-professed traditionalist who has been one of the most forceful defenders of what I might term neo-traditional “Clarkian” litigation. By that, I mean the model of civil disputing in which litigation is a primary vehicle. More important, the litigation is based on notice pleading, broad discovery, and a preference for adjudication on the merits.

Key Subrin works over the years have focused on the historical path of the Clarkian model, which served to fuel much of the law revolution of the mid-Twentieth Century, to the “new era” of civil procedure and dispute resolution that dominated the …

Should An Arbitration Provision Trump The Class Action? No: Permitting Companies To Skirt Class Actions Through Mandatory Arbitration Would Be Dangerous And Unwise, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

Companies are deliberately using mandatory arbitration to prevent consumers and employces from joining together in class actions. As Carroll Neesemann has explained, eliminating the class action is a "strong incentive" of those companies that impose the requirement of arbitration on consumers and employees. Mr. Neesemann defends this phenomenon, and his article offers companies and their attorneys some tips on how to effectively use arbitration to insulate themselves from the threat of class actions. By contrast, this essay argues that it is dangerous and unwise to permit companies to use mandatory arbitration to exempt themselves from class action suits.

Is The U.S. Out On A Limb? Comparing The U.S. Approach To Mandatory Consumer And Employment Arbitration To That Of The Rest Of The World, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

After quickly summarizing the landscape of mandatory arbitration both within and without the United States, this article will consider why mandatory arbitration is treated so disparately, whether it is problematic that approaches to mandatory arbitration are so varied among countries, and what the differing jurisdictions can and should learn from one another. The article concludes that the United States Congress should be very concerned with the fact that we are treating mandatory arbitration more permissively than other countries. I, along with many others, have previously presented many arguments for why mandatory arbitration is problematic. Our outlier status on this issue …

Ulysses Tied To The Generic Whipping Post: The Continuing Odyssey Of Discovery "Reform", Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

One need not be a charter member of the Critical Legal Studies Movement (“CLS”) to see a few fundamental contradictions in litigation practice in the United States. A prominent philosophical tenet of the CLS movement is that law and society are gripped by a “fundamental contradiction” and simultaneously seek to embrace contradictory objectives. Civil litigation, particularly discovery, is no exception: New amendments to the discovery rules are the latest example of this contradiction. Although the new changes are not drastic, they continue the post-1976 pattern of making discovery the convenient scapegoat for generalized complaints about the dispute resolution system. One …

Mandatory Binding Arbitration And The Demise Of The Seventh Amendment Right To A Jury Trial, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

How can the body of law which protects the federal constitutional jury trial right be reconciled with a body of arbitration law which often states such propositions as (1) arbitration is favored; (2) arbitration clauses may be upheld absent a showing of voluntary, knowing, or intentional consent; (3) the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proof; (4) arbitration can sometimes be imposed using unsigned envelope "stuffers," handbooks, and warranties; and (5) ambiguous contracts should be construed broadly to support arbitration? To be valid, in most courts the waiver and whether it was actually state arbitration clauses need not be …

Fighting Arbitration Clauses In Franchisor Contracts, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

Purporting to serve justice, efficiency, and freedom of contract, business interests are increasingly attempting to use binding arbitration clauses to secure unfair advantages over unknowing parties. Courts seemingly have been eager to enforce arbitration clauses that appear in franchise agreements. This article discusses courts’ enforcement of arbitration clauses, undermining protections to the franchisee, and how franchisees can create a more level playing field.

Identifying Real Dichotomies Underlying The False Dichotomy: Twenty-First Century Mediation In An Eclectic Regime, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Some people (lawyers, scholars, judges, dispute resolvers, policymakers) are more concerned about fidelity to procedural protocols while others are more concerned with the substantive rules governing disputes and substantive outcomes. Those in the dispute resolution community preferring facilitation tend to be proceduralists. For them, the observance of proper procedure is a high goal, perhaps the dominant goal. They reason, often implicitly, that adherence to the rules of procedure is the essence of neutrality, fairness, and the proper role of a dispute resolving apparatus. At some level, usually subconscious, there is a post-modern philosophical aspect of this preference. Because humans cannot …

The Inevitability Of The Eclectic: Liberating Adr From Ideology, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

The problem with viewing facilitation as the only legitimate form of mediation, of course, is that it borders on tautology: mediation is nonevaluative, therefore any evaluation in mediation must be impermissible. Although this view remains strongly held in many quarters, it appears to be in retreat, both within the mediation community and in the legal community at large. Courts and commentators have shown increasing favor toward some evaluative or advising component of mediation. More important, the eclectic style appears to be what takes place in the metaphorical trenches of mediation practice (although sound empirical data is necessarily hard to obtain …

Is Binding Arbitration A Form Of Adr?: An Argument That The Term "Adr" Has Begun To Outlive Its Usefulness, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

Professor Frank Sander has, for many years, been one of the most prescient commentators on the alternative dispute resolution ("ADR") movement. His 1976 Pound Conference speech has been identified by many as marking the birth of the modern ADR phenomena. That speech, which compared some of the pros and cons of litigation and an array of other dispute resolution processes, has been summarized as proposing the concept of the "multi-door courthouse." In contrast, Professor Sander's more recent and very interesting review of the present and future of ADR makes little attempt to distinguish between mediation and binding arbitration, the two …

As Mandatory Binding Arbitration Meets The Class Action, Will The Class Action Survive?, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

Assuming that the traditional prerequisites for a class action have been met, courts have four choices: (1) order the dispute to be resolved in an individualized arbitration, thereby denying plaintiffs either a litigation or arbitration venue for their class claims; (2) refuse to mandate arbitration, and instead allow plaintiffs to litigate their class claims; (3) order that the dispute be resolved through an arbitral class action, also known as classwide arbitration; or (4) order the dispute to arbitration but allow the arbitrators to make the determination as to whether the dispute should be resolved individually or on a class basis. …

Compelling Arbitration Of Claims Under The Civil Rights Act Of 1866: What Congress Could Not Have Intended, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was a very special statute, designed at minimum to eliminate all "badges and incidents of slavery" and to ensure that the freed slaves would be provided with civil rights equal to those of white persons. Its enforcement depends on the availability of a neutral public system of justice. Private arbitration cannot assure these characteristics. Thus, courts should not enforce agreements to arbitrate future disputes that may arise under this statute. This Article, however, does not argue that arbitration of claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 should be prohibited altogether. Disputants who mutually …

Contracting Access To The Courts: Myth Or Reality? Bane Or Boon?, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Many scholars of the dispute resolution system perceive a sea change in attitudes toward adjudication that took place in the mid-1970s. Among the events of the time included the Pound Conference, which put the Chief Justice of the United States and the national judicial establishment on record in favor of at least some refinement, if not restriction, on access to courts. In addition, Chief Justice Burger, the driving force behind the Pound Conference, also used his bully pulpit as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to promote ADR, particularly court-annexed arbitration. The availability of judicial adjuncts such as court-annexed arbitration …

Mandatory Pre-Dispute Arbitration: Steps Need To Be Taken To Prevent Unfairness To Employees And Consumers, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

Courts, arbitral organizations and governmental agencies are increasingly recognizing that mandatory binding arbitration can be used both to disadvantage employees and consumers, and to evade legal requirements. Over the last decade, private parties such as employers, manufacturers and financial organizations began using binding arbitration agreements to skirt the public law, and public juries, with increasing intensity. As so often happens, overreaching may once again be giving way to retrenchment, as the tide seems to be turning away from the “anything goes” approach of the earlier 1990s.

Gateway Widens Doorway To Imposing Unfair Binding Arbitration On Consumers, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

Hill v. Gateway, is but the most extreme example of a series of court decisions that allow large companies to impose potentially unfair binding arbitration agreements on unwitting consumers. The outcome in Gateway, however, is questionable on federal statutory, common law, and constitutional grounds.

Rethinking The Constitutionality Of The Supreme Court's Preference For Binding Arbitration: A Fresh Assessment Of Jury Trial, Separation Of Powers, And Due Process Concerns, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

Courts and commentators have typically assumed that binding arbitration is both private and consensual, and that it therefore raises no constitutional concerns. This Article challenges both assumptions and goes on to consider arguments that arbitration agreements may unconstitutionally deprive persons of their right to a jury trial, to a judge, and to due process of law. The author argues first that courts' interpretation of seemingly private arbitration agreements may often give rise to "state action," particularly where courts have used a "preference favoring arbitration over litigation" to construe a contract in a non-neutral fashion. The author next draws on the …

Panacea Or Corporate Tool?: Debunking The Supreme Court's Preference For Binding Arbitration, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

This article examines the increasing use of contracts of adhesion in which companies require consumers, employees, franchisees and other "little guys" to submit disputes with the company to binding arbitration. The article argues that the Supreme Court's current preference for such agreements is not statutorily well-founded. Specifically, it contends that the Federal Arbitration Act was not intended to make such agreements binding on unknowing consumers or employees. Turning next to policy analysis, the article asserts that the Supreme Court has erred in expressing a preference for binding arbitration in cases where such arbitration was not knowingly and voluntarily accepted by …