Arbitration’s fightin’ words in some circles – it invokes impassioned detractors and dedicated defenders alike. Some people are overly dismissive, while others are unaware of the potential pitfalls. Most, though, just know nothing about it.

As the founder of a modern A(O)DR enterprise software platform, FairClaims, I have mixed feelings on the subject. I’m confident ADR can serve the public well, but also do my best to remain open-minded about the potential trade-offs.

Most of the ADR hubbub centers around mandatory arbitration between large corporate behemoths and the consumers they transact with. It’s the “Goliath slays David” story the media can’t resist, and probably sells a lot of papers. Detractors argue that the repeat player advantage, pressure and incentives on arbitrators to show bias towards corps, and limited transparency combine to make arbitration unfair for consumers. In contrast, defenders argue that plaintiffs’ lawyers are the only ones who benefit from class action lawsuits, which would be even more prevalent if mandatory arbitration were discarded.

While both sides raise valid questions, their perspectives tend to be somewhat myopic for my taste. This article is an effort to both challenge and contribute to the current discourse by sharing some observations I hope will help broaden the debate and focus on what we can do to optimize ADR for everyone. Here’s what I’ve observed.

Most Lawyers Don’t Know Much About ADR

I didn’t know much about ADR when I first contemplated starting FairClaims, other than some articles I read in law school about the theoretical benefits of Online Dispute Resolution. While some lawyers have extensive knowledge and experience on this front, most don’t. For example, most lawyers are shocked to find out arbitrators don’t have to be attorneys (though most of ours are).

It makes it harder to even engage in a healthy public debate on this topic when trusted ambassadors don’t have informed opinions, making it that much easier for ideology and emotion to displace logic. I recently asked a successful, sophisticated attorney his opinion on all the hubbub. This is what he said – “I don’t know much about arbitration, but it sounds like it favors the corporations and I’m for whatever helps the little guy, so I guess I’m against it.” Hmmmm…

It’s Tempting to Automatically Side with the Little Guy

First off – the customer’s not always right. It’s also of course true that the corporation’s not always right (though they have a higher duty and greater impact on others, which is why they deserve greater scrutiny). If that weren’t the case, we wouldn’t need triers of fact or judicial proceedings. We’d just side with the customer every time. As an attorney who’s worked in Biglaw, in-house at a major company, and has represented small businesses and individuals for 7 years, including many a little guy, I’ve frankly seen people of all stripes try to screw each other over. So let’s stop pretending it’s the little guy against the big evil corporation. Rather, it’s about holding bad actors accountable regardless of who they are.

Second, assuming for argument’s sake that the little guy is right, that doesn’t necessarily mean court is the right choice, or that arbitration is definitely bad. The facts, law, adjudicators, rules, and evidence all impact the outcome, whether in court or online. And while we can second guess and criticize ADR outcomes, we can do the same with court rendered outcomes – not to mention that 80 to 90% of the little guys can’t afford an attorney.

So, let’s put ADR in context and consider the other, even more systemic forces which may be at work here, including underlying law, lack of access to quality legal counsel, and (gasp) the facts.

We Don’t Have Much Data

Arbitration is private and often confidential. While some results are published, it’s difficult to interpret the data, and the public data is neither plentiful nor complete. Looking at the data we have, we know a number of consumers historically lose at arbitration. But why? Is it because companies are typically the ones who initiate arbitration with consumers, and choose to settle cases they think they may lose at arbitration, which thereby impacts statistics and results? Is it because consumers can’t afford Biglaw attorneys, which impacts their chances at succeeding against Biglaw attorneys in arbitration? Or are other aforementioned factors at play?

Unfortunately, I don’t know the answer because I don’t have enough data. That’s why it’s important to move away from uninformed ideology and towards more substantive solutions that help to understand the arbitration process and whether it presents a level playing field for everyone involved.

Where Technology Comes In

Dispute resolution software can go a long way toward increasing access to justice. Technology makes it cheaper and faster to resolve disputes. Predictive analytics and AI can be used to drive two parties to resolution. By providing access to real settlement data and a convenient way to make offers and counteroffers, parties will be more empowered to make decisions regarding resolution.

Remote access is also key. If parties can arbitrate, mediate, and settle from anywhere, huge barriers are removed from the process. Time and inconvenience preclude more parties from pursing justice than money does, since most claims are for small amounts, requiring appearances in small claims court. If, instead, parties can make settlement offers, upload/annotate evidence, and receive binding arbitration decisions from wherever they may happen to be, more are likely to see a case through to resolution.

It’s this broader convergence of technology that makes direct-to-consumer legal services plausible. In today’s digital age, technology is key to increasing access to justice, and arbitration is certainly no exception.

Stephen Kane is Founder + CEO of FairClaims, an online dispute resolution platform, and a Stanford CodeX Center for Legal Informatics fellow . He was formerly at O’Melveny & Myers, in house at a large communications company, a small business attorney, and part of the early team at Lex Machina. Stephen is also a founder and Chairs the Board of GRID110, a 501c3 working in partnership with the LA Mayor’s office to build up the start up scene in downtown LA. He’s an east side LA native, and die-hard Dodgers and Lakers fan.