Professor of Law, New York University School of Law. B.A., 1951, New York University; LL.B., 1954, Columbia University. This article is a slightly expanded version of a speech delivered at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York on April 8, 1969. It appeared first in the New York University Law Review, December 1969, and is reprinted here with permission.
A widely held and generally enlightened view of arbitration law in this country calls for an hospitable attitude toward arbitration clauses in commercial contracts,' and most of the reasons for this attitude appear to be relevant in the context of private antitrust litigation. Assuming that arbitration can facilitate the speedy disposition of complicated commercial litigation, that of course would be a welcome improvement in the area of private antitrust litigation where lawyers and their clients grow old and gray plodding from pre-trial discovery to trial to appeal seeking a final and enforceable judgment. Similarly, if arbitration can lead to a more efficient and economical disposition of antitrust litigation, that too would be an important improvement over current enforcement. Finally, the opportunity to remove from our already over-burdened federal judiciary a class of litigation that sometimes threatens to swamp the system with protracted multiple litigations would surely be a welcome development.