The adoption of the Uniform Family Law Arbitration Act (UFLAA) this year has brought renewed focus on deciding family law issues within the context of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR). As a result, more individuals are expected to opt to arbitrate their family law disputes. While arbitration is not a new concept to family law, the UFLAA standardizes the process in Pennsylvania, ensuring consistency and clarity across cases, and closes the gaps left by the commercial arbitration statutes by addressing the unique needs of family law participants.

How does arbitration differ from other methods of ADR? While arbitration, mediation and collaborative law are all consensual processes that allow divorcing couples to exercise some degree of autonomy, there are significant differences between them. In a mediation, mediators facilitate negotiations between spouses or parents with the goal of arriving at a mutually acceptable agreement. Lawyers are not essential to mediation, but sometimes will participate. Collaborative law requires parties and their counsel to enter into a four-way contractual relationship designed to incentivize a settlement. Collaborative law negotiations are not facilitated or directed by a third party, such as a mediator, and if the process fails to achieve settlement, the lawyers must withdraw from representation. Arbitration, on the other hand, contrasts sharply with these dispute-resolution methods. In arbitration, the parties contract with a decision maker, often an experienced family law attorney, to act as a private judge to determine specific disputes. Family law arbitrators hear expert and lay witness testimony, examine documentary evidence, and reach a final decision. Unlike the public judicial process, arbitration is binding and final. If one party is unhappy with the outcome of the arbitration, there are no automatic procedures for review.