Arbitration has become a frequently preferred method for resolving attorney malpractice disputes. In fact, it is often mandated in retainer agreements as an alternative to litigation. Arbitration offers several significant advantages for both attorneys (as defendants) and clients (as plaintiffs), providing a route to fair, efficient and more predictable outcomes.

For attorneys, one of the most attractive features of arbitration is the avoidance of jury verdicts. Jurors, many of whom may not be familiar with legal practice norms, can be swayed by emotion or antipathy toward attorneys, who are sometimes perceived negatively by the general public. Arbitration, by contrast, places decisions in the hands of a neutral third party — often another attorney or retired judge — who will focus on evidentiary and professional standards.

Arbitration is typically faster and less expensive than litigation, which can drag on for years and generate significant legal fees and court costs. The process is also private and confidential, as opposed to public court proceedings. This confidentiality can protect the attorney’s reputation from unnecessary public damage, particularly in cases where the malpractice claim is ultimately found to be without merit.

The finality of arbitration decisions can also benefit attorneys. Arbitration awards are generally binding and subject to very limited judicial review. This reduces the likelihood of protracted appeals, providing closure and certainty for the defendant.

Plaintiffs who believe they have been harmed by attorney malpractice also enjoy distinct advantages through arbitration. It can provide swift remedies without the financial burden of years-long litigation. Arbitration can be more accessible and less intimidating compared to a courtroom trial. It offers the opportunity to present a case in a less adversarial setting, which can encourage more candid discussion and potentially foster settlement. Arbitration provides greater flexibility in scheduling and procedure, as compared with formal court processes. The privacy of arbitration may also appeal to those seeking to avoid the publicity of a lawsuit, especially in sensitive cases.

The choice of arbitrator is critical for plaintiffs. While some may worry about bias since arbitrators are often attorneys themselves, a well-chosen arbitrator can actually provide a fair assessment because they understand the complexities and professional standards at the heart of malpractice claims. They can bring expert evaluation of what constitutes reasonable behavior under the circumstances, possibly benefiting clients whose grievances might have been misunderstood by lay jurors.

Ultimately, the qualities sought in an arbitrator reflect the priorities of arbitration itself: legal expertise, impartiality and a reputation for fairness. By selecting a qualified neutral, both attorneys and plaintiffs position themselves to benefit from the predictability and equity that arbitration is designed to provide.

If you think arbitration might be the right answer for your legal dispute, contact Quinn & Kronlund, LLP. Our Stockton lawyers are skilled at managing attorney malpractice arbitrations effectively. You can contact us online or call us at 209-943-3950.