Standards for Private Judges

Your Dec. 26 article on private judges touches one aspect of the much deeper problems of “alternative dispute resolution.” Many organizations require that disputes with their clients be settled by mandatory arbitration, often by retired judges. These organizations are frequent users of the judges, and have veto power over who will sit on the panels. The clients, by contrast, will usually appear only once. If judges don’t satisfy their organizational clients, they will be blackballed from future business.

The arbitration denies the client discovery, procedural protections and, worst of all, the right of appeal, and the public is denied access to the rationale of the decision. Since the powerful machinery of the state is used to enforce such judgments, and some cases have serious public consequences, the state has an obligation to ensure that they are just. The following changes are required:

Arbitrators must be certified and licensed by the state. They must be randomly assigned to cases by a state agency. They must not be rejected by any party, except for good cause. Their judgments must be subject to appeal, at least to the same extent as those made by real judges in real courts.

HARVEY S. FREY MD, PhD

Director, Health Administration

Responsibility Project

Santa Monica