> In my opinion (again), the judge's requirement for mandatory arbitration denied you one of your fundamental rights as an American. Just saying.
I entirely agree, actually. Especially since my step-daughter is a minor. Judge: "So, you've sued a minor in small claims. That's not a thing you can do. There's a process to do so, but we may not be able to proceed today."
I was ready to lean on that, but there was the associated stress to her and partner that they just wanted done.
As it was, the arbitration used e-signing. I wrote an agreement, and didn't sign until I spoke to our (insurance) lawyers (who couldn't represent us in small claims, but could advise). In the end they said "we could definitely argue procedural issues, etc." but they drew up a quote for what that would cost in Superior Court, etc., etc. "How much did you tentatively agree to?" Told them. "Yeah, we'll just cut a check versus making a big deal out of it." (It was an amount far more in line with a questionable liability accident than what they asked for... and then we filed a claim right back...).
I have represented myself `pro se` (no lawyer) in a state court and a state Supreme Court. One of the fundamental things I have learned is that lawyers and courts work on what is "cost effective".
The way this works is that a lawyer says it is not worth while to take something to court - "... what that would cost in Superior Court..." In this the "cost" lawyers are calculating is not your cost but theirs - and I would suspect the same with the insurance agency.
Lawyers are driven by profit period. Not all lawyers certainly, but almost all. (note 1). Your case may have merit, and it may be cost effective for you. But, if it won't be profitable for the lawyers they won't want to do it. And profitable depends on two things. The first is the amount of work.
For example, lets take a divorce case. Most divorces, no matter what, go down a well worn path. The lawyers have boiler plate forms, probably know each other, know the judge. It is like a well oiled dance. The actual work they need to do versus the work they can bill is very low. If you are a programmer, this would be like you just wrote a program and now someone wants you to write almost exactly the same program.
For this profit to work, the clients - that would be you - need to go along and not go outside the well-worn-path.
The second dependency is your chance of winning. You might think this depends on the merits of your case, but that is your issue - not the lawyers. The lawyer is evaluating odds. If they have two cases, one with a 90% chance of winning and yours with a 50% chance of winning they take the 90. Things that affect their odds are who the opposing lawyer is, who the judge is. You may have a case, but the judge may have a reputation for having a grudge against people like you. Or your lawyer may have just lost too many times against the other lawyer.
And no sane, profit oriented lawyer will contemplate appealing your case. It is just too expensive and time consuming.
I'm just trying to give you the lay of the land, because there is a kicker here. As a person representing yourself, you can appeal a case. And if you have a case, time and diligence you can pursue a wrong all the way to the US Supreme Court. In appealing a case - and I mean a case where you understand the law and have merit - you break the ordained dance. Suddenly the math for the lawyers and even the judge does not work any more.
I urge people who can do this to do it. Lawyers and to some extent judges, have gamified our courts in the interest of lawyer profit.
But I would be selling you a bill of goods if I did not raise the stress factor. You were absolutely correct: "there was the associated stress to her and partner ...."
Thanks for posting and sharing.
Note 1. For example in New Hampshire lawyer operated, free phone line you can call. But they will only answer questions if the case you want to know about is not about you getting money. Then you have to get a lawyer. But then the "cost effective" part comes into play and lawyers will not take your case.
[edit for grammar, clarity and incomplete sentence]
I entirely agree, actually. Especially since my step-daughter is a minor. Judge: "So, you've sued a minor in small claims. That's not a thing you can do. There's a process to do so, but we may not be able to proceed today."
I was ready to lean on that, but there was the associated stress to her and partner that they just wanted done.
As it was, the arbitration used e-signing. I wrote an agreement, and didn't sign until I spoke to our (insurance) lawyers (who couldn't represent us in small claims, but could advise). In the end they said "we could definitely argue procedural issues, etc." but they drew up a quote for what that would cost in Superior Court, etc., etc. "How much did you tentatively agree to?" Told them. "Yeah, we'll just cut a check versus making a big deal out of it." (It was an amount far more in line with a questionable liability accident than what they asked for... and then we filed a claim right back...).