as a lack of familiarity with arbitration procedures, even among frequent participants in the malpractice area.
In recent years, however, a new impetus for resolving attorney-client disputes through arbitration has arisen. The first type of dispute in which arbitration has been pushed is that of fees. Initially, local bar associations were the main proponents of arbitration of fee disputes; however, the American Bar Association took up the call after completing several studies on the subject. In 1995, the ABA enacted the Model Rules for Fee Arbitration, which were intended to provide a model for the states in encouraging attorneys to submit to the arbitration process in resolving fee disputes. This push for arbitration in fee disputes has not yet been mirrored by an equally widespread push for arbitration in the resolution of malpractice disputes. However, the basic considerations in both areas are the same.
These recent developments show that the five advantages of dispute resolution are becoming apparent to attorneys and bar associations. First, the time needed for dispute resolution is generally shorter than with litigation in the courts. This can be a distinct advantage with regard to malpractice claims because such claims affect the insurability of an attorney, as well as the premium rates for insurance. In addition, the shorter time results in lower costs, again affecting insurance. Second, arbitration frequently creates an atmosphere favorable to negotiation and settlement. In contrast, litigation in court promotes the adversarial mood, with litigants taking a "win at any cost" attitude. Third, the arbitration of legal malpractice claims minimizes unfavorable publicity. This can be especially important for the attorney who is the object of such a claim. Fourth, the limited discovery available in arbitration tends to benefit the attorney who has knowledge of the details and facts of the transaction. Fift...