The question of whether to enforce an arbitration agreement or proceed with traditional litigation is far from perfunctory. Indeed, it's a strategic calculation that can significantly impact the outcome of a dispute. Whether advising corporate clients, representing individuals, or navigating complex commercial relationships, attorneys must weigh the unique advantages and limitations of each forum. Arbitration offers privacy, efficiency, and finality. In contrast, litigation provides broader discovery, appellate rights, and precedential development.
Understanding the nuances of each path is particularly important in jurisdictions like Arizona, where statutory schemes such as the Arizona Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (A.R.S. § 12-3001 to 12-309) and county-level rules for compulsory arbitration add complexity to the equation. With the increasing scrutiny around the enforceability of arbitration clauses, especially in the consumer and employment contexts, attorneys must approach dispute resolution clauses with both foresight and flexibility. This article explores when arbitration may be the preferred route, when litigation offers advantages, and how major arbitral institutions compare in terms of rules, costs, and accessibility. It concludes with Arizona-specific guidance and additional authoritative resources to inform strategic decision-making.
Key Considerations: When to Enforce an Arbitration Agreement
To start, the decision to enforce an arbitration agreement should be grounded in both legal enforceability and strategic advantage. While arbitration is often touted for its efficiency and confidentiality, those benefits are context dependent. First and foremost, counsel must assess the agreement's validity and determine whether it meets state and federal standards for enforceability. In Arizona, for instance, courts have scrutinized arbitration clauses through the lens of public policy concerns, especially in consumer and employment settings. Do we need to cite cases?
Next, after determining that the agreement is enforceable, counsel should evaluate whether arbitration aligns with the client's goals. One of the most cited advantages is confidentiality; arbitration takes place outside the public record, offering an ideal forum for disputes involving trade secrets, sensitive employment issues, or reputational risk. This can be especially important for businesses with a public profile or competitive market exposure. Similarly, the efficiency and speed of arbitration are attractive when a client values swift resolution and wants to avoid the protracted timelines of civil litigation, especially in overburdened jurisdictions.
Cost control is another motivating factor, although it's a double-edged sword. For example, while arbitration may involve fewer billable hours due to limited discovery and no motion practice, the client's eyebrows might raise after receipt of the institutional fees, arbitrator compensation, and hearing expenses, especially if the case is in complex, multi-arbitrator panels. Clients with the resources and the inclination to resolve disputes quietly and decisively may prefer arbitration, even if it carries higher up-front costs.
Choosing arbitration may also be appropriate when subject matter expertise is an important factor. In highly technical fields, parties may benefit from selecting arbitrators with deep familiarity with the legal issues involved in the case. Indeed, major institutions like JAMS and the AAA offer panels of neutrals with specialized backgrounds, enabling a more informed and nuanced analysis than what might be expected from a generalist judge or jury.
Another consideration is the finality of arbitration awards. Arbitration typically offers no appeal, barring narrow grounds such as fraud or manifest disregard for the law. For some clients, this finality is desirable, as it avoids the expense and uncertainty of multiple appellate levels. However, the lack of appellate recourse is a serious trade-off for parties that believe legal error or injustice may occur without correction.
Timing can be critical. Courts have held that parties may waive their right to arbitration by engaging too deeply in litigation before invoking the clause. To avoid this, counsel should raise the arbitration defense early, ideally in the initial response to a complaint, to preserve the client's rights.
Finally, arbitration increases the likelihood that the outcome will be enforceable across jurisdictions. Under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and international agreements like the New York Convention, arbitration awards are often easier to enforce internationally than court judgments i
In sum, enforcing arbitration is a strategic move, best deployed when the client seeks privacy, speed, subject matter expertise, and closure, and when the risk of higher costs or limited appeal rights are outweighed by these benefits. For best practice, attorneys should assess the enforceability of the agreement, the procedural posture of the case, and the nature of the dispute to determine whether arbitration is not just permissible, but preferable for their client.
When Litigation May Be Preferable
While arbitration offers several potential benefits, there are many instances where traditional litigation provides strategic advantages. To start, one of the most compelling reasons to prefer litigation is the opportunity for broad discovery. For disputes involving complex fact patterns, or multiple parties, civil procedure rules can be critical to building a complete and persuasive case. This is especially true in matters involving fraud, misrepresentation, or intricate financial transactions where the ability to compel third-party witnesses or obtain subpoenaed evidence may be pivotal.
The right to appeal is another major consideration. In contrast to arbitration, litigation offers structured appellate review which can serve as a safeguard against legal error and ensure consistency in the application of the law.
In some cases, strategic public exposure may also favor litigation. Although many clients prefer the confidentiality of arbitration, others, particularly those seeking to highlight wrongdoing or apply reputational pressure, may benefit from a public courtroom setting. Namely, litigation is ripe for whistleblower actions, certain intellectual property disputes, or cases with regulatory or social implications. In Arizona, public litigation has attracted media attention in a way that may influence negotiations or public perception, especially in business disputes or cases involving municipalities or public institutions.
Costs can also tip the balance toward litigation. While arbitration is often framed as less expensive, the reality can be different, particularly in smaller disputes or when institutional fees are high. Arbitrators are compensated by the parties, and the cost of hiring an experienced panelist, particularly from a nationally known organization like JAMS or AAA, can rival or exceed the cost of a lengthy trial. In Arizona's state courts, particularly in counties like Maricopa and Pima, certain cases under $50,000 are subject to mandatory arbitration at no cost to the parties, while others may qualify for fast-track or simplified trial procedures that reduce expenses without sacrificing the protections of formal litigation.
Another reason to prefer litigation is precedent. For parties interested in clarifying legal questions or shaping the development of law, such as insurers, large employers, or public interest litigants, litigation provides the possibility of a written, citable opinion. Conversely, arbitration decisions are not published and cannot be used as persuasive authority in future cases, which limits their utility for parties pursuing legal consistency across multiple matters.
Additionally, in jurisdictions like Arizona, state law and procedural posture may also guide the decision. Arizona courts have shown increasing willingness to scrutinize arbitration clauses under unconscionability doctrines, particularly in consumer and elder care contracts. Where enforceability is in question, or where the potential for judicial review is important, it may be more prudent to forgo arbitration and proceed through the courts from the outset.
Ultimately, litigation may be the preferred path when a client needs expansive discovery, appellate protections, favorable legal precedent, or strategic transparency. For attorneys, the key is to tailor the forum to the goals of the case, not just the terms of the contact, and to evaluate litigation not as a fallback, but as a robust and strategic option in its own right.ii
Major Arbitration Institutions and Considerations
Several arbitration bodies administer proceedings, each with distinct rules and fee structures.
- American Arbitration Association (AAA)- One of the most commonly used institutions, AAA offers various industry-specific rules but can be costly due to administration and arbitrator fees.
- Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS)- Known for its highly experienced panel of arbitrators, JAMS is often chosen for complex commercial disputes, though its costs can be high.
- International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)- Frequently used in cross-border disputes, ICC is widely enforceable but expensive.
- Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)- Specialized for securities and financial disputes, FINRA arbitration is required for many broker-dealer disputes.iii
Arizona- Specific Considerations
Arizona has a distinct statutory and procedural framework that affects both the enforceability of arbitration agreements and the strategic choice between arbitration and litigation. Attorneys practicing in the state should be familiar with the laws, court policies, and judicial attitudes that may influence dispute resolution strategies and tactics.
Statutory Framework
Arizona follows the Arizona Revised Uniform Arbitration Act, A.R.S. §§ 12-3001 to 12-3029. This statute governs the formation, validity, and enforcement of arbitration agreements and applies to agreements made on or after January 1, 2011. It is generally aligned with the FAA. Key provisions include:
- §12-3001 to 12-3029: Arbitration agreements are presumed valid and enforceable unless found unconscionable.
- §12-3007(B): Courts decide whether an enforceable agreement exists, even when the contract delegates questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, unless parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise.
- §12-3012: Allows for judicial relief, including motions to compel or stay arbitration.iv
Significant Arizona Court Decisions on Arbitration
- Rizzio v. Surpass Senior Living, LLC, 250 Ariz. 458 (2021): The Arizona Supreme Court refused to enforce an arbitration clause in a nursing home contract, finding the clause substantively unconscionable due to prohibitively high arbitration costs for the plaintiff.
- Clark v. Renaissance West, LLC, 232 Ariz. 510 ( App.2013): Addressed procedural unconscionability and the enforcement of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, especially those lacking mutuality.
These cases reveal that while arbitration clauses are generally upheld in Arizona, courts will scrutinize agreements for fairness, particularly in the healthcare, consumer, and employment contexts.
Compulsory Arbitration in Arizona Superior Courts
Arizona has a court-annexed arbitration system for lower-value civil disputes, governed by Rule 72 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. The program is mandatory for certain civil cases where the amount in controversy is below county-set limit.
In Maricopa County, civil cases under $50,000 are assigned to arbitration before a court-appointed arbitrator.v The process is streamlined and inexpensive, and parties may appeal for a trial de novo if dissatisfied with the award. Pima County and other Arizona counties have similar programs. Rules of compulsory arbitration are set by administrative orders from each county's superior court, so local variation should be reviewed. The existence of these programs provides a low-cost, efficient alternative to both private arbitration and full litigation for relatively modest claims, especially in tort, contract and real estate cases.
Ethical Considerations for Arizona Attorneys
The State Bar of Arizona's Ethics Opinions emphasize that attorneys must fully explain the implications of arbitration clauses to clients, particularly when drafting to reviewing employment or consumer agreements. Informed consent is essential, and conflicts of interest may arise if arbitration is proposed primarily to insulate business from legal exposure.vi
Conclusion
The decision to enforce an arbitration agreement or litigate depends on the nature of the dispute, the governing arbitration clause, and strategic considerations. While arbitration offers privacy, efficiency, and expertise, it also limits discovery and appellate rights. In Arizona, attorneys should be mindful of judicial scrutiny over arbitration clauses and statutory constraints. Careful evaluation of each case's individual facts and circumstances will determine whether arbitration or litigation is the optimal path forward.
________________________________
i Arbitration vs. Litigation: Choosing the Right Path. Pepperdine Law Blog. (April 04, 2024).
ii Repa, Barabara Kate. Arbitration Pros and Cons: Learn about the advantages and disadvantages of arbitration. NOLO (12/26/2024).
iii List of Arbitration Institutions. Arbitrate.com.
iv A.R.S. Title 12, Chapter 21.
v Compulsory Arbitration in Maricopa County.
vi Arizona State Bar Ethics Opinion 05-05.