« No Satisfaction, at Least for One Lawyer Who's Not on the Cover of this 'ABA Journal' |
Main
| Any Testimony on Judicial Conduct Rules? »
Report: Arbitration a Trap for Consumers
Public interest advocacy group Public Citizen came out swinging yesterday against mandatory arbitration of consumer credit disputes and against one dispute-resolution company that hears many of these cases. In a 74-page report, The Arbitration Trap, Public Citizen looked at the use of binding arbitration by the credit-card industry. The conclusion: "Mandatory arbitration is a rigged game in which justice is dealt from a deck stacked against consumers."
The study focused on California -- the only state that requires public disclosure by arbitration providers -- and on one credit-card company and one arbitration company there, MBNA and the National Arbitration Forum. Among the most damning allegations:
- In more than 19,000 cases involving NAF arbitrators, 94.7 percent were decided in favor of the credit-card company.
- The decision to file for arbitration is made by the company, not the consumer, in 99.6 percent of cases.
- A small group of just 28 arbitrators handled nine out of every 10 NAF cases in California, ruling for the credit-card company 95 percent of the time.
- A Harvard law professor was blackballed as an arbitrator after she awarded a consumer $48,000.
It is a system, Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook said, in which credit companies hold all the cards:
"With binding mandatory arbitration, hearings are in secret. No transcripts are produced. Written explanations of decisions often are not provided so no precedents can be set and appeal is nearly impossible. Consumers can be forced to pay thousands of dollars in arbitration fees compared to several hundred dollars in filing fees in court."
The Institute for Legal Reform of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was quick to respond, calling the report a "bogus attack" and a self-serving tactic by the plaintiffs bar to line its own pockets. ILR President Lisa A. Rickard said:
"The plaintiffs' lawyers' attack on the arbitration system -- a process that has helped consumers resolve disputes for more than 85 years -- is nothing more than their latest attempt to enrich themselves by opening the door for more class action lawsuits."
No response as yet from the NAF. See also these releases from Public Citizen's press conference:
Posted by Robert J. Ambrogi on September 28, 2007 at 12:51 PM | Permalink
| Comments (3)
Comments
Bob, I am an arbitrator for NAF. My statitics would show that I rule for the Claimant in an extremely high percentage of cases. The statistic is misleading as 95% plus cases are default cases, where the consumer never bothers to answer
Posted by: legal eagle | Sep 28, 2007 1:19:06 PM
Your point about defaults is an interesting one. I do not recall that the report addressed that.
Posted by: Bob Ambrogi | Sep 28, 2007 1:31:58 PM
legal eagle, these values are derived from publicly accessible data provided by NAF in California. Are you saying that NAF is not providing the correct data?
Posted by: Shelley | Sep 30, 2007 1:19:07 PM
Post a comment