Marcia Coyle at National Law Journal parrots the conclusions of Professor Michael LeRoy's study attacking employment arbitration, even though those conclusions are, as I discussed last week, completely divorced from his underlying dataset and thus have no empirical basis. The article does have a good discussion of the trial bar's divide-and-conquer strategy to gradually eliminate consumers' ability to choose the benefits from mandatory binding arbitration, though not of the tactic of trumpeting bogus studies to further that goal.
National Law Journal on Michael LeRoy employment arbitration study
Related Entries:
- Compucredit v. Greenwood
- Senate hearing on arbitration and cell-phone contracts
- Around the web, September 27
- Around the web, August 16
- Around the web, August 15
- Arbitration and adhesion
- Arbitration jiu-jitsu against AT&T Mobility?
- "The Senate's Lawsuit Factory"
- Jamie Leigh Jones lawsuit falling apart
- Around the web, May 23
- Fisher on Concepcion
- Court rules for NVIDIA
- AT&T v. Concepcion: "Consumers Win in Allegedly Anti-Consumer Supreme Court Ruling"
- "Former Silicosis Clients Sue O'Quinn Law Firm, Estate"
- Class arbitration and unconscionability
![]() |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
| Bridget Carroll Press Officer, Manhattan Institute bcarroll@manhattan-institute.org |



