Mandatory Arbitration is Not a Fiduciary Practice


Photo by Álvaro Serrano on Unsplash

Advisor Perspectives welcomes guest contributions. The views presented here do not necessarily represent those of Advisor Perspectives.

Click here to watch a video and learn more about Evidence Based Advisor Marketing.

Here’s a communication I wish all advisors would send to their clients:

Dear [Client],

You may have read news reports that both Facebook and Google have ended the requirement for mandatory arbitration for sexual-harassment disputes. I believe the elimination of compelling employees to arbitrate these disputes is long overdue. I am writing to tell you about a change in our policy, which takes this development to another level.

Effective immediately, we will no longer require our employees or clients to arbitrate any disputes with us. Instead, we will give them and you the option to either arbitrate or pursue claims in court, before a jury, if you wish.

Here’s why I made this decision.

Arbitration favors repeat players

There’s a reason corporations and the securities industry have insisted on mandatory arbitration of disputes. It removes the uncertainty of a verdict by a jury and it’s often quicker and more cost-effective than court proceedings. It’s also a confidential proceeding, which may be beneficial to all parties.

But there’s a hidden rationale behind the requirement that employees and clients submit to mandatory arbitration. It favors “repeat players” – typically the company, not the complainant. It also makes any appeal from the decision of the arbitrator very difficult, giving the arbitrator(s) extremely broad authority.