Introduction: Dreaming about Arbitration Reform

Some peoples’ dreams are really great, or at least really exotic. Reverend Martin Luther King had a history-changing dream, of the end of discrimination. Me, I had a dream about a really great conference on arbitration, and how it might ultimately help lead to legal reform of arbitration. While the dream may not have been the most exotic, thanks to the participants in this Symposium, and many others, at least the first part of my dream has come true. We did host a very good conference. Perhaps this Symposium issue will even impact the nature of the law on arbitration in this country. The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is now eighty-two years old. Thus, its age, alone, raises the question as to whether the statute is in need of reform. Beyond such ageism, the Act of late has become quite controversial. Originally adopted to allow businesses to knowingly choose a potentially quicker, cheaper, more expert arbitration process over litigation, for many years the Act initially received little criticism or even attention. However, a series of Supreme Court decisions commencing in the mid-1980s made clear that the Act could be used not only in business-to-business settings, but also in contexts involving disputes between a business and a “little guy” consumer, employee, or franchisee. When companies began to rely on these Supreme Court decisions to mandate that “little guys” resolve future disputes through private arbi-