Are there any differences between the rules of evidence in a traditional court and in a securities arbitration hearing?

Yes, there are differences between the rules of evidence in a traditional court and in a securities arbitration hearing. In a traditional court, formal rules of evidence must be followed. This means that evidence must be relevant and reliable as defined by the court and must meet certain technical requirements. In a securities arbitration hearing, the rules of evidence are more relaxed. While the arbitrators will still consider the relevance of the evidence presented, they are more likely to accept evidence that is not admissible in a traditional court. This includes testimony from witnesses and other documents such as emails or memos. In addition, the burden of proof in a securities arbitration hearing is more relaxed than in a traditional court. In a traditional court case, the plaintiff must prove their case with a “preponderance of the evidence”, meaning that the evidence must be “more likely so” than not. In a securities arbitration case, the burden of proof is not as strict and the plaintiff may only need to show a likelihood of their claim. Overall, the rules of evidence are more relaxed in a securities arbitration hearing, allowing for more evidence to be admitted. Additionally, the burden of proof for a plaintiff is lower than in a traditional court case. These differences give securities arbitration hearings an advantage when it comes to resolving disputes quickly and efficiently.

Related FAQs

Are there any differences between the rules of evidence in a traditional court and in a securities arbitration hearing?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts