Hacker News Reader

Comment by entropi | Hacker News Reader

I am not a lawyer or anything, but how is that legal? If simply opting out of the legal system is an option, why does it exist?

View on HN

Well, because Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act, which says it's legal.

Depending on your views, you might also note that American courts are ruinously expensive and many people are denied access to justice because they can't afford to go through the legal process - which a cheaper parallel system can help with.

Or with different political views, you might note that because the powerful elite get to write the contract, the powerful are only subject to arbitration when they want to be. And laws are written by the powerful elite.

This is why economic inequality is a problem. Although it's often brought up that the economy is not a zero-sum game, and it's possible for everyone to get richer together despite rising inequality, this view doesn't recognize that money brings power, and power is a zero-sum game.

It used to be a lot easier to get a law degree. California is currently the only state that will let you sit for the bar without a JD. You have to have equivalent work experience but you can still as a completely private citizen get yourself into practice.

Industrial gatekeeping is a real problem. One of the indirect mechanisms is the accumulated complexity of the law and the seeming inability for legislatures to remove outdated and fruitless laws from their books. Unsurprisingly the people most capable of achieving this are not interested in doing it.

Small correction, but there are actually four states (CA being one of them) where you can avoid law school by what is called “reading the law”. It entails more or less doing an apprenticeship with a practicing attorney or judge and meeting certain requirements.

And the pass rate is abysmal (~20% vs ~60% in VA) vs law school. It’s barely a viable path to practicing law.

The bar needs to be broken out into separate tests that credential different aspects of practicing law. There's no reason a criminal attorney needs expertise on securities law unless they practice in that field.

Do any other nations do that? Much of the UK splits barristers (trial law) and solicitors (non-trial law) but I’m pretty sure that’s a historical relic not a designed split to make each easier to learn and practice.

I think people just interacted with the legal system far less in the past and there was less specialization.

So why do you believe the ‘splitting’ would be viable in the US? Is there some argument for why it’s more likely than not?

Evidence of partiality and misconduct of the arbitrator are expressly permitted grounds for vacation in the federal arbitration act.

Which I'm sure the arbitrator will bend over backwards to make available to you, and you can surely investigate/sue to force discovery while you're in the midst of Yet Another Lawsuit, err arbitration, right?

Get real.

The annoying thing about it is that it could be structured in such a way as to be still vaguely attached to the (hopefully impartial) judiciary. Instead you have to trust an arbitrator that is in a business relationship with the entity you're having a problem with.

Same reason you're allowed to defend yourself in court (to your peril) despite being afforded representation. It's a freedom, until you're locked into it by a larger organization with all the money and power plus a service you need to survive (or at least survive with some modicum of convenience). We've really allowed the moneyed interests to capture nearly everything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com