It's a good idea in theory, but I don't see it being realistic in many cases where your legally under-represented plaintiff would be able to win.
First you have to get the other party into arbitration. At this point they have already breached their agreement, so even if it is a clause in a contract, who says they are going to participate? You would need considerable leverage to compel them to spend the $149 to end the dispute. And then assuming you do win, what compels them to honor the judgement? I did read the FAQs, but if I have to go to a court to effect a lien or seizure, why did I spend $149 on arbitration when I could have spent $50 to file in court in the first place?
Because actually prevailing in court will cost more than $50, whereas prevailing in a legal claim for the award of a binding arbitration is very inexpensive; in reality, most bona fide disputants in arbitration can be expected to simply pay.
The filing cost does vary between jurisdictions, but about $50 to file, another $20-30 depending on how you serve the defendant, and since there are no attorneys in small claims, that about covers it. the time spent in court could be considered a wash compared to the time spent collecting and sending evidence for arbitration. The point being, my expectation in the first place was that the client would honor the agreement, so expecting them to honor a judgement is a little hard for me to believe. Why take the roundabout path when I can go straight to court? I guess based on my own experience I don't feel this service covers the typical dispute worthy or arbitration/legal action.
A civil end to a dispute can only be accomplished by two civil parties working it out.
