Alternative to Litigation - Court Annexed Arbitration

• NCJ Number: 95432
• Journal: California Western Law Review Volume: 20 Issue: 1 Dated: (1983) Pages: 43-59
• Author(s): CJ Snow; E M Abramson
• Date Published: 1983
• Length: 17 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This paper examines Pennsylvania's court-administered arbitration system and the one instituted by California in 1979, focusing on major conceptual and procedural differences and suggesting a model compulsory arbitration scheme.

Abstract

To deal with court backlogs, the Pennsylvania legislature enacted a law in 1952 making all civil actions subject to compulsory arbitration upon the filing of a complaint for less than $20,000, if the action did not concern title to real estate or seek equitable relief. Arbitrators are selected from the local bar and hear cases in panels of three. Hearing procedures are dictated by local court rules, although liberal exceptions to rules of evidence are allowed. California's law makes arbitration mandatory for all civil cases in each superior court with 10 or more judges where the claim does not exceed $15,000, with specified exceptions. Criteria governing selection of an arbitrator are more liberal than in Pennsylvania, and the arbitrator is responsible for scheduling the hearing. Discovery is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedure. Both Pennsylvania and California laws include deterrents for appeals of an arbitration award. The Pennsylvania system has worked very well, and less than 1 percent of the arbitration awards were successfully taken to trial in 1981. It reduced the civil case backlog from 48 to 21 months over 2 years; consequently, some jurisdictions have been able to reassign judges to criminal courts to help reduce their backlogs. Preliminary data on California's system are discouraging. It apparently has had only a small impact on the civil case backlog, and 5 percent of the arbitration awards for 1980-81 were successfully taken to trial. The paper discusses weaknesses of both systems and then proposes a model that remedies problems involving maximum amount requirements, discovery rules, selection of arbitrators, procedural rules, and appeals. The paper contains 151 footnotes.