Divorce Arbitration, or the presentation of family law disputes to an agreed impartial third party, for decision outside of court, is not a remedy that is either intended for or beneficial only to the wealthy. In fact, it may be of greater use to the “99 percent” because of its ability to be tailored by cost-sensitivity. Here are three examples:
- The costs of delays in court and court proceedings hit lower economic clients harder as a proportion of their resources than wealthier people, as for example, non-progressive taxes do (think cigarette, gasoline and MA state income taxes).
- The ability to define procedural rules by contract permits lower economic clients to have a trial that they
- time limit overall (i.e., “no more than 3 hours for hearing”;
- limit time of direct or cross examination of witnesses (i.e., direct examination of 1 hour with, or cross-examination limited to ½ hour);
- use written direct testimony (already in use in the federal courts);
- relax rules regarding hearsay and other forms of objections;
- eliminate written findings of fact and/or limit scope of the arbitator’s written rationale; or
- create a mutual trial “budget” (ie, agree that the marital estate will pay no more than $2,500 for the arbitration hearing and to accomplish that...).
- As arbitration becomes more prevalent, there will inevitably be more arbitrators who cater to different segments of the market by use of lower or higher hourly rates, or even lump sum fee arrangements.