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

The overall sentiment among reviewers is one of deep dissatisfaction. Many complain that the arbitration process leaves them feeling shortchanged and frustrated, with outcomes that seem biased and designed to favor corporate interests over individual claimants. Several reviewers felt that the process drained their resources without delivering the promised justice.

Service Quality & Expertise

Multiple reviewers questioned the legal expertise and preparedness of the arbitrators. Specific names such as Commissioner Watness, Judge Lucky, Judge Brickner, Judge Terry Friedman, and others were cited for their unprofessionalism and lack of due diligence. While one reviewer mentioned that the service could be cost effective for high-stake disputes, most felt that the decision makers were ill-equipped to handle cases with the seriousness they deserved.

Customer Service & Communication

Feedback regarding communication and support was largely negative. Many clients complained about unresponsive and unprepared mediators who left key issues unexplained or ignored, leading to confusion and mistrust. There were also reports of off-record discussions and side communications that were not transparent to all parties involved.

Value for Money & Pricing Transparency

Several reviews highlighted the exorbitant fees associated with initiating and pursuing arbitration, with figures such as $1750 to start and additional thousands over the course of the dispute. Clients felt that the high costs, which far exceeded any perceived benefit, made the process more about profit than about fair resolution, often leaving the smaller party financially burdened.

Timeliness & Efficiency

Delays and a lack of efficiency were common themes. Cases that could have been resolved in months instead dragged on for years. The reported unpreparedness of the arbitrators and their slow pace in handling matters led to prolonged disputes that only increased costs and frustration.

Professionalism & Trustworthiness

Professionalism was frequently called into question, with many reviewers citing obvious biases, sloppy handling of evidence, and even personal unprofessional behavior from arbitrators. The conduct of several named arbitrators contributed to a general loss of trust in the system, with some reviewers suggesting that the firm prioritizes profits over genuine, equitable dispute resolution.

Facility, Environment & Ambience

On a more positive note, the physical facilities at certain locations, particularly in Los Angeles, received accolades. Reviewers praised the well-appointed conference rooms, beautiful views, abundant amenities, and professional support staff that helped create a more pleasant environment despite the overall negative feelings about the process.

Accessibility & Convenience

Although specific logistical complaints were less frequent, several reviews lamented the forced nature of mandatory arbitration clauses and the lack of accessible recourse within the organizational structure. The process was deemed inflexible and not conducive to fair access to legal remedies for the average individual.

Problem Resolution & Follow-up

The effectiveness of dispute resolution was a major concern. Many reviewers described the outcomes as arbitrary and unenforceable, noting that even after an award was granted, follow-up was insufficient, forcing them into additional legal battles. The perceived inability of JAMS to ensure proper resolution further diminished confidence in the process.

Unique Strengths & Areas for Improvement

While standout strengths include the impressive facilities and the comfort provided by the physical environment, there is a clear need for significant improvements in the arbitration process. Reviewers suggest enhancing the selection and preparedness of arbitrators, increasing transparency in pricing and decision-making, and offering better communication and follow-up support. There is also strong advice to reconsider or remove mandatory arbitration clauses to prevent future financial and legal hardships for individual claimants.