OK, so in Part One we all agreed that we need to give people a better choice than the one between a system of civil litigation that does a great job of permitting appeals, but is perceived to be, or is, too cumbersome or expensive to resolve disputes; and a system of arbitration that, one hopes, is cheaper, but does not permit, at least the judicial appeal that parties might wish to have available if the arbitrator gets it “wrong.”

In Part One of this series, Disputing highlighted the survey group profile described in “Arbitration in Evolution: Current Practices and Perspectives of Experienced Arbitrators,” authored by Pepperdine University School of Law Professor Thomas Stipanowich and Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution Research Fellow Zachary Ulrich.

Professor Thomas Stipanowich, Pepperdine University School of Law, and Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution Research Fellow Zachary Ulrich, have published “Arbitration in Evolution: Current Practices and Perspectives of Experienced Arbitrators,” Columbia American Review of International Arbitration, Forthcoming ; Pepperdine University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014/30.

An article in the Spring 2014 issue of the ABA’s Dispute Resolution reports on the sad results of a 2011 Fortune 1000 ADR survey. The survey updated a 1997 study. The bottom line: in 1997, Fortune 1000 companies, tired of the expense and inefficiency of litigation, were overwhelmingly interested in using arbitration. In 2011, Fortune 1000 companies, tired of the expense and inefficiency of arbitration, were really more interested in mediation.