Is there a difference between the standards of proof in arbitration and in court?

Yes, there is a difference between the standards of proof in arbitration and in court. Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution process that allows parties to have their case heard and resolved without going to court. In arbitration, the dispute is resolved through a neutral third party, often called an arbitrator, who makes a final, binding decision on the dispute. In Washington, the standards of proof in arbitration are different than those in a court of law. In Washington court proceedings, the civil standard of “preponderance of evidence” is used. This standard requires that the evidence presented must be enough to persuade the judge or jury that the claims made by one side are more likely true than not. In arbitration, however, the decision is made by the arbitrator, and the standard of proof used is not typically as strict as in a court of law. Although the specifics of the standards of proof vary depending on the rules that have been established for the arbitration, the standards often include a range from “sufficient information” to “clear and convincing evidence.” This lower standard of proof means that the arbitrator has more discretion in making their decision and allows evidence that might not be admissible in court to be considered as well.

Related FAQs

Is there a difference between the standards of proof in arbitration and in court?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts