Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution
Abstract
When modern arbitration became popular in the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries, courts viewed it as a threat to their exclusive powers. Over time, that mindset has changed dramatically. The passage of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") in 1926 embraced a federal policy strongly favoring arbitration as a method of relieving court congestion and providing parties with a speedier, less costly means of resolving disputes. Thereafter, agreements to arbitrate found their way into many standard form agreements and business contracts as arbitration became accepted as a bona fide alternative to litigating in court. Today, as litigators can attest, judges in our overcrowded courts routinely suggest, cajole and persuade counsel to submit various types of disputes to binding arbitration. Some state courts now require the parties, as a condition precedent to trial, to submit disputes to a court-appointed arbitrator.
Disciplines
Commercial Law | Dispute Resolution and Arbitration | Law | Legislation
Recommended Citation
Neal M. Eiseman, John E. Bulman & R. T. Dunn,
A Tale of Two Lawyers: How Arbitrators and Advocates Can Avoid the Dangerous Convergence of Arbitration and Litigation,
14
Cardozo J. Conflict Resol.
683
(2013).
Available at:
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/cjcr/vol14/iss3/4