NCJ Number
99897
Journal
Villanova Law Review Volume: 29 Issue: 6 Dated: (1983-1984) Pages: 1495-1503
Date Published
1984
Length
9 pages
Annotation
Attorneys who took part in three-member arbitration panels in Philadelphia during the last 6 months of 1983 responded to a survey designed to determine their perceptions of the newly centralized system's fairness and the competence of the panels.
Abstract
Respondents were asked about randomly selected, specific cases. Responses came on 293 questionnaires representing 185 different cases. All 3 arbitrators responded regarding 39 cases, and for 30 other cases, 2 of the arbitrators responded. Different types of cases produced different total awards and different levels of special, delay, and punitive damages. Punitive damages were awarded in only four cases. Using respondents' descriptions of their law practices, the random selection of arbitrators for the Philadelphia panels resulted in neutral panels half of the time, plaintiff-oriented panels 28 percent of the time, and defendant-oriented panels 22 percent of the time. Most panelists, regardless of their orientation, agreed with the decision and with the amount awarded. Statistically fair results occurred with both plaintiff-oriented and defendant-oriented panels. Arbitrators perceived the system as fair and had a high level of experience. In most cases, the credibility of witnesses was important in the decisionmaking process. The arbitrators felt that most of the counsel appearing at arbitration hearings were adequately prepared. Thus, the reality contrasts with myths regarding the fairness of the system. 7 footnotes.