Ethics

I remember back in the day drafting arbitration clauses for firms to be sure they covered malpractice, gave full disclosure, avoided being "prospective limitations on liability," and so on.  As an expert, I see them in some retainer letters today (when lawyers use retainer letters, which is an entirely different issue).  There's a concise pro/con of them here.

I've now been an expert in some arbitrations, some cases that required mediation before litigation, and some that went straight to litigation. My own anecdotal view -- based on a really small sample and so that's why I'm posting -- is that arbitration doesn't save any money in terms of cost to either side and in fact can be far more expensive (if you get arbitrators who are unable to make decisions such as partial summary judgment or limiting the scope of discovery), and I'm not sure the outcome is any more predictable and/or "better" in any sense.

Thoughts?

And, sadly Leslie Nielsen passed away today.  "I am serious. And don't call me 'Shirley.'"