Originally from Dispute Resolution Journal

More than a century ago, Abraham Lincoln had the following advice: "Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser- in fees, expenses, and waste of time." Despite these sage words, alternative forms of dispute resolution such as negotiation and mediation were not historically a favored formal method of settling disagreements in the American legal landscape. As litigation became more complex, expensive, and time consuming-and duels and shoot-o uts at high noon became less favored-exploration of alternatives became more active. Arbitration has not become a regular feature in the landscape of dispute resolution, but resistance to its use has been persistent in some quarters. For example, although there have been some inroads in tort litigation, it is doubtful at th is point that arbitration will gain major prominence in that area, because plaintiffs- and plaintiffs' attorneys-are very reluctant to give up the right to a jury.

The enactment of the Federal Arbitration Act was a major force in encouraging and, in a sense, legitimizing the use of arbitration, particularly in the commercial field. In 1959, the Second Circuit, in Robert Lawrence Company v. Devonshire Fabrics, Inc., characterized Congress' action in creating the Federal Arbitration Act as not only an attempt to counteract the general hostility of courts and judges to agreements to arbitrate, but also as a means to "make the benefits of arbitration generally available to the business world."