What is the difference between direct and indirect arbitration?

Direct arbitration and indirect arbitration are two different types of arbitration processes. Direct arbitration is when the parties involved in a dispute go directly to an arbitrator to hear the case in its entirety and render a final decision. This type of arbitration is usually the fastest and least expensive of the two types. Indirect arbitration, on the other hand, involves the parties submitting their dispute to a mediator who will help them come to an agreement without having to resort to a final decision from an arbitrator. The mediator’s role is to help the parties decide on a resolution by providing a neutral third party to help negotiate and settle the dispute. Direct arbitration is binding, meaning that the parties are obligated to comply with the final decision of the arbitrator. In indirect arbitration, on the other hand, the parties are not obligated to comply with the decision that the mediator helps them come to. In California, direct and indirect arbitration are both legally binding processes and are regulated by the California Arbitration Act. Depending on the situation, one type of arbitration may be more appropriate than the other. When in doubt, it is best to speak to a legal professional to determine which type of arbitration process is right for your particular situation.

Related FAQs

What is a motion to limit the scope of an arbitration?
What is a motion to modify or correct an arbitration award?
What is a stay of arbitration?
Is there a process for consolidating multiple arbitrations?
What is a summary judgment in arbitration?
What is a motion to compel arbitration or stay proceedings pending arbitration?
Can arbitration awards be modified?
What is a motion to confirm an arbitration award?
What are the remedies for breach of an arbitration agreement?
How do I challenge the jurisdiction of an arbitrator?

What is the difference between direct and indirect arbitration?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts