Among the oft-cited criticisms of arbitration is the application of “relaxed rules of evidence.” This criticism is generally verbalized in the context of posing a potential obstacle to success. In my 30+ years of arbitrating cases, I have never seen, or heard of, any case being decided on the basis of evidence that would have been inadmissible in court. Furthermore, the “relaxed rules” approach to admissibility of testimony and documents in arbitration is, in my experience, similar to what the parties would experience in a bench trial or administrative proceeding, and thus not so much a departure from the norm but rather the absence of a need to shield jurors from being improperly influenced. In arbitration, you should have an experienced and knowledgeable decision-maker who can make such determinations if arguably-inadmissible evidence is presented.
And, this expectation of the parties presents a shared responsibility. Thus, I encourage evidentiary objections during the arbitration hearing. I do this for the following reasons:
Thus, even if that hearsay comes in, and I say “I will allow it and give it the weight it deserves”, you have done your job.
