You Can Have Your Day in Court-But Not Before Your Day in Mandatory, Nonbinding Arbitration: Balancing Practicalities of State Arbitration

• Author: Amberlee B. Conley
• Position: J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2019; B.A. The University of Arizona, 2015
• Pages: 325-351

325

You Can Have Your Day in Court—But

Not Before Your Day in Mandatory,

Nonbinding Arbitration: Balancing

Practicalities of State Arbitration

Amberlee B. Conley*

ABSTRACT: Mandatory, nonbinding civ il arbitration programs have

existed for decades as a means of reducing the workl oad of crowded court

systems. Many state laws either proscribe th e details of their state’s program or

allow their courts to decide the specifics. De spite their longstanding presence,

many of the programs are not designed to optimize the balance between

efficiency and fairness. The programs are hindered by three overarching

concerns: the fact that they are mandatory, supposedly nonbinding, and not

always more efficient than a court proceeding. Moved by these concerns, the

current programs often vary in jurisdictional limits, qualifications of

arbitrators, and the ease of app eal. This Note discusses the ad vantages and

pitfalls of these programs, then suggests that state legislatures redraft th eir

laws to include in these programs the fa ctors most likely to offer plaintiffs an

economical, reliable alternative to the over-crowded court system. These factors

include a $50,000 jurisdictiona l limit, required training for arbitrators, case

assignment based on subject-ma tter expertise of arbitrators, and a carefully

drafted disincentive to appeal an arbitra l decision.

I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 326

II. THE HISTORY AND STRUCTURE OF MANDATORY,

NONBINDING ARBITRATION PROGRAMS....................................... 328

A. THE HISTORY OF ARBITRATION IN THE LAW ............................ 330

B. STATE-MANDATED ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

PROGRAMS IN SPECIFIC AREAS OF THE LAW.............................. 333

C. MANDATORY, NONBINDING ARBITRATION PROGRAMS

FOR CIVIL SUITS ..................................................................... 334

1. Maricopa County, Arizona .......................................... 335

* J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2019; B.A. The University of

Arizona, 2015.

326 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 104:325

2. Cook County, Illinois ................................................... 336

3. King County, Washington ........................................... 337

III. THE PROBLEMS WITH MANDATORY, NONBINDING CIVIL

ARBITRATION PROGRAMS ............................................................ 338

A. OVERARCHING PROGRAM CONCERNS ...................................... 338

1. The Consequences of “Mandatory” Arbitration ......... 339

2. The Consequences of “Nonbinding,” “Private”

Proceedings .................................................................. 340

3. The True Costs of Mandatory, Nonbinding

Arbitration ................................................................... 340

B. PROGRAM-SPECIFIC CONCERNS ............................................... 342

1. Jurisdictional Limits ..................................................... 342

2. Arbitrator Qualifications ............................................. 343

3. Appeals Process ............................................................ 345

C. ISSUES APPLIED ..................................................................... 346

IV. SOLUTION ................................................................................... 347

A. STATE LEGISLATURES SHOULD PROVIDE PROGRAM

STRUCTURE IN DETAILED STATUTES ........................................ 348

B. STATE LEGISLATURES SHOULD ADOPT EFFICIENT AND

FAIR PROGRAM SPECIFICATIONS .............................................. 348

1. Ideal Jurisdictional Limit ............................................. 349

2. Ideal Arbitrator Qualifications .................................... 349

3. Ideal Appeals Process .................................................. 350

V. CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 351

I. INTRODUCTION

Imagine a citizen has lost around $20,000 at the hands of a wrongdoer

in a landlord-tenant dispute. The citizen looks to the law, believing it will

provide justice. Raring for their day in court, the cit izen is deflated to discover

that they must instead attend a mandatory, nonbinding arbitration

proceeding before stepping foot in the courtroom. The citizen obliges and

pays a steep fee for legal representation. However, the citizen is further

distressed to learn that the court-appointed arbitrator has neither experience

as an arbitrator nor experience in landlord-tenant law. As a result, the

arbitrator erroneously enters an award for the opposing party, leaving the

citizen longing for a judge to review the decision. However, the citizen

discovers that an appeal will lead to increased risks of court-imposed fees as

well as the continued cost of legal fees. At this point, the citizen either

(1) does not have the funds necessary to pursue an appeal, or (2) could

appeal, but would risk incurring court fees exceeding his $20,000 loss. This