104 Iowa L. Rev. 325 (2018)

Download PDF

Abstract

Mandatory, nonbinding civil arbitration programs have existed for decades as a means of reducing the workload of crowded court systems. Many state laws either proscribe the details of their state’s program or allow their courts to decide the specifics. Despite 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 appeal. This Note discusses the advantages and pitfalls of these programs, then suggests that state legislatures redraft their laws to include in these programs the factors most likely to offer plaintiffs an economical, reliable alternative to the over-crowded court system. These factors include a $50,000 jurisdictional limit, required training for arbitrators, case assignment based on subject-matter expertise of arbitrators, and a carefully drafted disincentive to appeal an arbitral decision.