I recently tried a medical malpractice case with Charles Capace, a partner from my old firm. The case was against the internist of our client’s late husband. The internist should have diagnosed the husband’s colon cancer at an early stage when it was curable. The internist ignored ominous symptoms. When the cancer was diagnosed, three years late, it had metastasized to the liver of the decedent. He was 62 years old.

What made the case a first for me was that I tried it before an arbitrator rather than a jury. I had never tried a personal injury case before an arbitrator before, and worried that even if we won, that the award might be modest. I agreed to arbitration in this case because some of our theory of the case was subtle, and I thought arbitration might be preferable to a jury.

The arbitrator was a well-respected retired Superior Court judge. I enjoyed the arbitration process. While the trial itself was every bit as thorough and intense as a jury trial, the atmosphere was much more informal and relaxed. When evidentiary issues arose, an unhurried discussion could take place between the judge and counsel in advance of the ruling.

Best of all – justice was done. We received a $1.1 million dollar award for our client, which, with pre-judgment interest added, was doubled. While I would still be very cautious before choosing arbitration over a jury trial for a serious personal injury case, it is worth a careful look.