As noted last week, I spent Thursday and Friday representing my father in an NASD arbitration. I won't comment on the substance, but I did find that arbitration has some real procedural advantages: (1) instead of jurors, you get triers of fact who actually have some expertise regarding the issues at hand; (2) the arbitrators interrupt and ask to clarify matters while you are still discussing them, instead of waiting for counsel to raise an important issue that may be overlooked; (3) the arbitrators are flexible about evidentiary matters. While this doesn't always work to one's advantage, I much prefer a common-sense standard for expert arbitrators to the need to keep evidence from the jury reflected in evidence codes and common law (oddly, opposing counsel didn't seem to know that the rules of evidence are only advisory, at best, in NASD arbitrations).

I'm going to open comments for a discussion of how attorneys (or litigants) who have participated in both feel about arbitrations versus jury trials.