Fishman Haygood Attorneys Weigh Benefits of Litigation Versus Arbitration in Article
March 1, 2012
Fishman Haygood attorneys James Swanson and Lance McCardle recently published an article exploring the differences between litigating a securities claim and arbitrating the claim in the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) forum.
The article titled “Why Might a Broker Prefer to Be in Court, Not Arbitration?” discusses recent movements by brokerage firms to challenge customers seeking to arbitrate their claims inFINRA. The article traces the seeming reversal of preference by the brokerage firms and analyzes the reasons customers may now prefer to be in FINRA arbitration rather than state or federal court. As the article explains:
“In many securities disputes, especially large complex ones, the conventional wisdom that arbitration favors the brokerage firm is wrong. Securities fraud defendants know that litigation of such disputes is unbelievably costly and time-consuming and is taking place on a substantive legal playing field that is tilted in their favor. Arbitration, in contrast, while not perfect, guarantees a plaintiff a hearing of his claims and the chance to obtain a final decision relatively quickly and efficiently.”
The article was published in the Practising Law Institutes 2012 (Handbook Series B-1950).