Most jurisdictions have specific laws that address arbitration. Most people are concerned about the dollar amounts or possible controversy that can be attached to any civil case. Arbitration is typically recommended when there is less money at risk. And arbitration is not typically an option when dealing with cases that are being appealed. Cases that involve property on a domestic or private level are typically good candidates for arbitration. Arbitration is not typically used for determining child support or spousal support.

The parties involved can also sometimes request that an arbitration decision be nothing more than an advisement. In this case, the decision is not binding and the parties can then make the choice to pursue additional legal action or follow the recommendation. This is not, however, considered mediation. Mediation is something entirely different. There are many ways that an arbitrator is different from a mediator. The biggest single difference is that mediators do not have to be attorneys. They can not provide legal advice, and they do not have the legal authority to make any binding decisions on cases. Arbitration attorneys must be agreed on by all parties who are hiring the arbitrator. However, there may be times when one certain group has decided to find and hire an arbitrator. When this happens, that group can make the final decision on who will be hired. There are often lists of arbitrators available to help people make a decision in whom they will hire. When the parties involved can not agree on one arbitrator, the courts have the power to randomly assign one.

It is well known that litigations can last for a very long period of time and often takes years for a case to settle. Unlike in litigation, during arbitration the rules of evidence and related procedures become quite relaxed. One can generalize and expect the following benefits during arbitration: Less expensive than litigation, Faster process, Lesser involvement with lawyers, Binding and non binding arbitrations possible, Arbitrator’s fees is lesser than that for a lawyer, Helps sooner settlement in non binding arbitration, As the arbitrator is not bound by the procedure rules he is more practical, No appeals can be filed on a binding arbitration

Before deciding on arbitration it is essential for the client to reflect and see if arbitration has to be preferred over litigation. This should be done considering all what is at stake, including time and the money involved. The arbitration clause has to be well reviewed preferably with the help of a lawyer.

With non-binding arbitration, the arbitrator makes a determination of the rights of the parties to the dispute but this determination is not binding on them. The award given is just an advisory opinion. Thus here the role of an arbitrator is similar to that of a mediator in a mediation. However unlike in mediation the arbitrator remains totally away from the actual settlement process though he might give suggestions. What happens after a non binding arbitration? Well subsequent to a non-binding arbitration, it is up to the parties involved; they are free to pursue their claims either via the courts, or by a binding arbitration.

Arbitration is a process in which the parties agree to use a neutral person to make binding decisions to resolve disputes. In the area of family law, the parties can choose an arbitrator to make binding decisions regarding property and financial issues as well as child-related issues.

Many divorcing and separating couples want to keep their dispute out of court to the fullest extent possible. Because arbitration is more private and confidential than court, parties often feel more comfortable using the arbitration process to settle their marital disputes rather than airing them in open court.

How is Arbitration Different from Mediation?

In mediation, the parties are in total control of the outcome and fashion their own agreement. In arbitration, it is the arbitrator and not the parties who ultimately decides the outcome. While arbitration is a more formal process than mediation, both arbitration and mediation are less formal than court.

How Does Arbitration Work?

To get started, you and the other party must agree to use arbitration, and sign an Agreement to Arbitrate with the arbitrator you choose. You might already have such an agreement in a pre- or post-nuptial agreement or other settlement agreement.

Typically, there is then a hearing at which each party makes arguments for their position and presents their evidence, witnesses, experts if any, and documents to the arbitrator. After the hearing is closed and all the evidence is in, the arbitrator will issue a written decision that will make findings of fact and decisions based on those facts.

Can the Court Order the Parties to Arbitration?

The court cannot order the parties to go to arbitration without their agreement. Once the parties have a written agreement to arbitrate some or all family disputes, however, that agreement is binding and, except in unusual circumstances, the court will enforce it, requiring the parties to arbitrate prior to bringing their dispute to court.

Is the Arbitrator’s Decision Final?

After the decision (called an award) has been issued by the arbitrator, either party may request an order from the court confirming the award. If a party feels the award needs clarification or was improper, s/he may ask the arbitrator or court to modify, correct, or vacate the award. In some states, either party may request the court to hold a hearing concerning an award on child-related matters.

Are Attorneys Required in Arbitration?

You do not need to retain an attorney to represent you and participate in arbitration, but attorneys are always welcome. Even if you choose not to have an attorney represent you at the arbitration hearing, it is advisable to consult with an attorney prior to the hearing for advice about your legal rights and obligations, and what documents and evidence might be necessary to adequately present your case at the hearing. Since the arbitrator cannot or will not give you legal advice, consulting with an attorney gives you an opportunity to ask questions and get information.Why Should we Pay to Arbitrate our Divorce or Child-Related Issues When Court is Free?

Studies have found that arbitration is very often faster, simpler and less expensive than litigation. It is true that you will have to pay the arbitrator’s fees and costs, but the service you get is more focused and personalized than court. In court, your hearing can be interrupted by unscheduled emergency motions or other matters. This doesn’t occur during arbitration, so you would likely pay your attorney less during an arbitration hearing than during a scheduled court hearing.

As a soldier cannot go into battle wearing flimsy, inappropriate apparel, the lawyer cannot also go into court to win a client’s lawsuit decked out in inappropriate get-up.

In court, the opening statements and first instances of arguments serve as a rich venue for the arbitrators, juries and judges to observe the lawyer and form their initial impressions of him and the case he is representing. Given this reality, a trial lawyer must be adept in putting up an appearance and demeanor that will possibly generate the most positive influence to form such first impressions.

In the beginning, if a lawyer presents an appearance of being offensive, his image more or less becomes tarnished for the rest of the proceedings. In the eyes of those observing the lawyer, he already has a lower ethos. However persuasive his arguments may be, these may also be affected by the initial appearance he has shown.

There is an existing diversity in dress standards for every part of the country. In the western part, the code of apparel is far more casual and relaxed compared to some sections in the East Coast.

There is no given recommendation on the standards of dress codes. However, every lawyer must see to it that his way of dressing and overall appearance does not radically oppose or offend the general dress standards in the particular area where he will appear for a trial. Lawyers must also be aware of their audience expectations or standards on how an attorney at law ought to look.

According to Paul Mark Sandler in The Daily Record http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage , many trial lawyers tend to avoid using bow ties because of the belief that juries are not inclined to trust someone wearing bow ties. On the other hand, lawyers who are going to argue appeal cases or are representing cases with no jury trial does not hesitate to use bow ties.

Although a lawyer may prefer colorful or more casual attires, traditional suits remain largely as a good manifestation of professionalism and competence, and thus most recommended.

For trial lawyers going into court, they must appear conservative in a certain way that is well matched to the attire they are most comfortable with. His whole get-up must also be consistent with his regular personal style and adaptable to the expectations of the audience.

In accessorizing, the lawyer must be careful in choosing jewelries to match with his outfit. While there is no code regarding wearing of flashy or sparkling jewelry, it could become a distraction, and thus, quite inappropriate in the courtroom.

There is a theory that opulent jewelry worn by a lawyer could cause some rift between him and the jury’s perception of his arguments. The jury would fail to identify with the lawyer’s case since they perceive a certain extravagance due to the show of jewelry.

Aside from a trial lawyer’s mode of dressing and accessorizing, here are other equally decisive factors that influence the jury or judge’s perception of the lawyer and his client’s suit:

- The way a lawyer arranges his documents and materials on the table. If a lawyer wants to convey the aura of being well prepared, organized and in-control, he must strive to maintain a neatly arranged table during the course of the trial.

- It is adequately helpful for a trial lawyers to learn about the judge’s preferences in the conduct of the trial. This would avoid him from suffering unnecessary embarrassments.

- To gain more impact in a closing argument, it is advisable for a lawyer to move along each juror and make eye contact with him or her. These gestures instill a powerful impression for each juror, implying that he cares about every one of them and that he is speaking sincerely, rather than saying a piece of memorized script.

- The trial lawyer’s delivery of his arguments must not be wrought with overly dramatic facial expressions and motions, although making eye contact is recommended.

Every trial lawyer may have different views on how to appear, stand and deliver in court. The general principle is for them to appear comfortable, natural and reliable in order to exude confidence and positive influence.

Our lawyers are experienced trial lawyers in California personal injury cases. We have the special skills for personal injury litigation and trial work. At such challenging times, you should concentrate on healing and let us worry about maximizing the value of your case.