Since you can do a lot on the Internet it shouldn’t come as a surprise that someone has concluded there is a role (and profit to be made) on an Internet based arbitration service.

Read the Latest ZipCourt Press Release

 ZipCourt opened its doors as an online dispute resolution platform for the resolution of disputes of any type.  Prior to ZipCourt, disputes were often resolved in the way they had been in the 17th Century: through courts, lawyers, paper, witnesses and hearings. At one time, traditional arbitration was marginally faster and cheaper but then became as expensive and time consuming as litigation.  The dispute resolution process—whether in the courts or in arbitration—was inherently disruptive to business and people’s lives.

 Instead, ZipCourt provides an online dispute resolution process that fits with the way that business is being conducted and the way people live their lives in the world today.  At ZipCourt, your dispute is quickly and fairly submitted to a neutral party who considers the evidence, and the parties’ arguments, and comes to a reasonable decision quickly and economically. ZipCourt eliminates the most disruptive and expensive aspects of court and traditional arbitration proceedings.  ZipCourt has a clean and elegant design and was developed in Palo Alto with significant input from Stanford Law School students.  The Dean of Stanford Law School sits on the Advisory Board.  ZipCourt is not for every dispute, but if you want an objective and enforceable decision from an independent neutral third party and appreciate paying lower outside counsel fees, then ZipCourt is the answer. The only answer. Check out the ZipCourt website for more information www.ZipCourt.com.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Whether or not this particular firm or strategy succeeds will only be determined by time. It does however raise questions that are legitimate for court leaders to consider. Do we give enough attention to lower level civil cases and provide an economically sound method of resolving those disputes?  Is it so outlandish that courts might agree to provide a similar method of dispute resolution if the parties mutually requested it?