JAMS Claim business

Deep Dive: Detailed Analysis of Customer Reviews

We’ve gathered and analyzed reviews from real customers across the web to give you an in-depth look at their experiences with JAMS. Here’s what people are saying about their service quality, professionalism, and reliability:

Overall Experience & Satisfaction

Many reviewers expressed strong dissatisfaction with the arbitration process, describing it as unfair and poorly executed. Several accounts mentioned feeling that the entire process was set up to benefit corporations or the wealthier party, and that the outcomes often left the aggrieved party with unresolved grievances and wasted expense.

Service Quality & Expertise

Criticism was frequently directed at the arbitrators' inability to properly consider evidence and apply the law impartially. Specific examples include Judge Lucky, who was accused of dismissing key arguments, and Judge David Brickner, whose lack of understanding of real estate contingencies led to an unfavorable ruling. There were also accounts where arbitrators, such as Commissioner Watness, failed to address fraudulent activities in trust disputes.

Customer Service & Communication

Reviewers noted that communication during the arbitration was often lacking. Several mentioned that arbitrators appeared disinterested and unprepared, ignoring critical evidence or failing to make themselves available for clarifications. In contrast, a few positive comments appreciated the overall support of the professional staff, especially in the more welcoming facility environments.

Value for Money & Pricing Transparency

Many customers criticized the high cost of initiating and pursuing arbitration, with specific fee amounts provided by reviewers. The expenses associated with depositions, transcripts, and additional costs were seen as disproportionate to the outcomes received. Several reviewers argued that the process was financially draining, particularly for individuals with limited means.

Timeliness & Efficiency

Numerous reviews highlighted the inefficiency and prolonged nature of the arbitration process. Complaints included proceedings that dragged on for years, missing transcripts, and delays that eventually forced parties back into the court system. The slow pace of resolution compounded the frustrations with the overall experience.

Professionalism & Trustworthiness

Issues of professionalism were a common theme, with several reviewers accusing arbitrators of bias, incompetence, and even dishonesty. The perception that arbitrators had pre-decided outcomes or favored powerful interests undermined trust in the process and left many parties feeling misled and exploited.

Facility, Environment & Ambience

Some reviews provided a contrasting perspective by praising the physical environment of the facilities. The comfortable conference rooms, plentiful breakout areas, modern business centers, and even scenic views from high-rise offices were noted as positive aspects that helped mitigate the stressful nature of arbitration sessions.

Accessibility & Convenience

There were mixed comments regarding accessibility. While the supportive staff and well-equipped physical locations were appreciated by a few, other reviewers felt that the system lacked efficient channels for raising complaints or obtaining timely responses, adding to the overall frustration with the process.

Problem Resolution & Follow-up

Many reviewers complained that arbitration did little to truly resolve issues. Negative experiences included rulings that ignored key evidence, double standards in decision-making, and awards that were impossible to enforce without returning to the court system. The lack of effective follow-up and opportunities for appeal left many feeling that the resolution was ultimately incomplete.

Unique Strengths & Areas for Improvement

While the arbitration facilities and some aspects of the support services received occasional praise, the overwhelming sentiment was that the core arbitration process is deeply flawed. Reviewers suggested that significant improvements are needed in arbitrator selection, communication, fee transparency, and the overall fairness and enforceability of the decisions rendered. Many urged for a reconsideration of mandatory arbitration clauses and for enhanced consumer protections.