Bridget McCormack

litigation back into all of their consumer, maybe not all, but a lot of their contracts.

Because I think, you know, and I'm not going to speculate about why, but I think parties are always thinking about what the best forum is.

You know, there's like a robust literature on procedural fairness, procedural justice that goes something like this.

I won't waste time on the details of it, but it's if parties feel like they were heard

and that they understand the process.

They understand what happened and why it happened.

In other words, if the neutral deciding the dispute can explain it to them, they're far more likely to grow trust in institutions.

It used to be sort of a big deal in training judges.

We would remind judges how important it was that people feel heard.

And even if you're going to rule against them, they will take bad news for them and still grow trust in the institution if they feel heard and understood and they understand what happened.

And that matters because today's parties are tomorrow's witnesses and tomorrow's jurors, right?

Like, you want to grow trust.

And, you know, in every case, usually one person is disappointed.

That's just how disputes go.

I'm not sure I agree with you that getting some award...

isn't important.

There's data, a bunch of arbitration scholars, or really dispute resolution scholars, did some recent work on employment arbitration.

And the number of cases that just get summaried out in court where an employee has a claim or believes she has a claim against her employer is

quite high, maybe not surprising to you.

And that just simply doesn't happen in employment arbitration.