- L’Auberge Del Mar Fall SeasonPosted 5 months ago
- Best Ways to Travel to Vegas for a Night on the TownPosted 6 months ago
- Exclusive Yoga Event in San DiegoPosted 2 years ago
- Ms. Jr Pre Teen San Diego AVA AQUINOPosted 2 years ago
- Charity Golf TournamentPosted 2 years ago
- Make-A-Wish Honoree 2015Posted 2 years ago
- RSF Fall FestivalPosted 3 years ago
- San Diego Computer HelpPosted 3 years ago
- 10th Annual SES Tennis PRO-AMPosted 3 years ago
- SoCal Parrot Charity EventPosted 3 years ago
- El Milagro Estate for Sale $19,995,000Posted 3 years ago
- Fun Dog Events in San DiegoPosted 3 years ago
- Grey Lee Designs “My Eternity” NecklacePosted 3 years ago
- Beverly Hills Food & Wine ExtravaganzaPosted 3 years ago
- Smart Real Estate InvestmentsPosted 3 years ago
Your Legal Options
These days’ people have three ways to resolve a dispute: mediation, arbitration, or regular old-fashioned litigation at the courthouse.
As a trusted San Diego attorney, Stanley Prowse, explains your legal options when considering any of these actions.
Mediation is voluntary. Even if you have agreed to mediate before arbitrating or litigating, a judge can’t order you to mediate if you change your mind. On the other hand, if your agreement gives attorney fees to the winner in arbitration or a lawsuit, it may also take the fees away if the winner has refused to mediate first. The ubiquitous California Association of Realtors residential purchase and sale agreement form has worked that way for decades.
Mediation in one form or another has been around forever. A mediator does not decide a case and make a ruling. Instead mediators, like village elders, help parties resolve their differences peacefully by mutual agreement. In the 1960’s mediation proponents thought of it as a warm and fuzzy way to give the urban poor, who could not afford the civil judicial system, access to rough justice.
It did not turn out that way. Instead mediation became institutionalized in the 1980’s, when the judicial system appeared threatened by a tidal wave of litigation. Lawyers co-opted the flower children, so now it’s hard to tell the difference between mediation and a judicial settlement conference. The pitch is unappetizing, but realistic: you can’t tell how a judge will rule, and you can’t afford to find out. Mediation may work in most cases, but whether the results are fair or legal is an open question. If mediation doesn’t work, the parties can arbitrate or litigate.
If the parties have a written agreement to arbitrate, a judge can order them to arbitration, which can be binding or non-binding. The arbitrator does decide the case and does make a ruling, called an Award. If the parties have agreed to binding arbitration, the winner can easily turn the Award into an enforceable court judgment, which cannot be appealed. But if they have agreed only to non-binding arbitration and one party refuses to abide by the Award, it’s unenforceable and useless. Most arbitrations are therefore binding. As a San Diego attorney with over 30 years of experience, I understand the differences and possible outcomes.
When the American Arbitration Association was formed in 1926, arbitration was supposed to be cheaper and faster than litigation. The parties choose the arbitrator, who doesn’t have to be a lawyer or a judge, and the rules of evidence used for court trials need not be followed. However, arbitration has gradually developed its own thicket of rules and procedures rivaling those of the courts, so its superiority to the judicial process is often questionable. Nonetheless arbitration remains a thriving business in the private sector. It also thrives in the public sector as a mandatory service provided by the federal government to resolve labor disputes.
Attorney Stanley Prowse says, if the parties cannot agree to arbitrate, they are left with the courts and lawsuits. If you think of The Law as a set of rules producing predictable results under similar circumstances, so that who’s right and who’s wrong should be obvious, you are in for an unpleasant surprise if you find yourself involved in litigation. Decades ago the idea was to narrow the relevant facts as much as possible, so that the applicable rule would be readily found. Typical judicial opinions were only a few pages long. Our present pursuit of perfect justice has turned this scheme upside down. Judges want to hear about every fact that could possibly have any bearing on the outcome, and lawyers are happy to oblige them. Typical judicial opinions are now dozens of pages long. Consequently each case produces its own rule – which produces the paradoxical result that there are no rules or predictable results.
Perfect justice has yet to be found. What we have may have drawbacks, but it seems to be preferable to any alternative available anywhere else. Grin and bear it! Call your trusted San Diego attorney, Stanley Prowse today to schedule your legal consultation or visit us only at www.StanProwse.com