Originally from Dispute Resolution Journal

Introduction

That arbitrators tend to “split the baby” by issuing compromise awards is amongst the hoariest of clichés in the dispute resolution field. While the idea of arbitrators as baby-splitters has been challenged by commentators and lacks support in empirical evidence,1 the idea is surprisingly persistent.2 More importantly, it may be continuing to influence the decisions of actors whether or not to use arbitration to resolve disputes. A 1997 survey conducted by David Lipsky, Ronald Seeber, and Richard Fincher found that 49.7% of general counsels of Fortune 1000 corporations reported that concerns about compromise decisions was one of their reasons for not using arbitration.3