The Public Believes Predispute Binding Arbitration Clauses Are Unjust: Ethical Implications for Dispute-System Design in the Time of Vanishing Trials

Authors

Victor D. Quintanilla, Indiana Univeristy, Maurer School of Law
Alexander B. Avtgis, Indiana University, Maurer School of Law and School of Public and Environmental Affairs

Keywords

civil law; litigation; arbitration clauses; predispute; ethics

Abstract

Drawing on these findings, we discuss the pressing need for a wider ethic that applies to transactional attorneys who design binding arbitration clauses within adhesion contracts. We also draw lessons from behavioral legal ethics and social psychology. These lessons reveal that this wider ethic may be endangered by the situational influences that currently operate within law firms (and in-house) due to these two intersecting patterns. We discuss ways of altering the regulatory environment to encourage the wider ethic to flourish.

Recommended Citation

Victor D. Quintanilla and Alexander B. Avtgis, The Public Believes Predispute Binding Arbitration Clauses Are Unjust: Ethical Implications for Dispute-System Design in the Time of Vanishing Trials, 85 Fordham L. Rev. 2119 (2017).
Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol85/iss5/33