Arbitration - A Primer by Jonathan Gelber There has been much hue and cry about arbitration, and its step-sister, mediation recently.  There is nothing new about these topics, they have been around for years.  The theory of arbitration is conceptually very simple.  One can delegate one’s contractual rights to justice and access to courts into an arbitral channel.  One’s case is heard before an arbitrator, or arbitrators instead of a court or jury.  After that, the arbitration ruling or award, if not paid or otherwise resolved, can then be confirmed and turned into a judgment by a  court.  In one sense this short circuits the courts.  In another sense, it does not entirely eliminate the need for the court system if the matter is not fully resolved within the framework of the arbitration, to mostly include payment. Mediation is a completely different matter. Mediation allows a third neutral party to examine the rights, facts, issues and legal positions of two parties, and attempt to bring them into resolution.  If I were to walk into a room in which an arbitration was occurring and then next a mediation occurring, I might not know immediately which room held which proceeding.  However, the chief distinction is that mediation is not binding; it is merely a third party rendering advice as to how a case might go, and trying to resolve it based upon that.  Arbitration is the opposite, in that it is complete, final and binding. To read the entire article, click here.

  National Association of Retail Collection Attorney
  (NARCA)

  2006 Fall Collection Conference
  October 19-21, 2006
  The Westin Kierland Resort & Spa
  Scottsdale, AZ