Any discussion of the benefits of arbitration over litigation generally parrots the "well known" benefits. That is, arbitration is generally viewed, by both lay persons and even by most attorneys, as a more economical and efficient method of resolving disputes than traditional litigation. Attorneys and parties are often surprised when arbitration includes complex and burdensome discovery, motion practice, and expensive hearings. As explained below, the line between arbitration and litigation has, at least in some instances, disappeared.

A. The Traditional Benefits Of Arbitration

The general perception of arbitration as a cheaper and faster method of resolving disputes is the result of certain generally-held understandings about arbitration. One common perception and, indeed, mantra of arbitration associations, is that arbitration involves little, if any, of the formal and burdensome discovery processes that are part and parcel of litigation. Thus, most people assume that, in an arbitration, there will be no requirement to produce documents in response to voluminous document requests, to participate in depositions, or to involve third-parties in discovery. It is also generally believed that arbitration is faster than litigation because arbitration avoids the delays associated with overcrowded court dockets. Finally, because of the strict limitations on judicial review of arbitrations, arbitration is ...