HN Explorer

Ask HN: Review my concept for an online court substitute

3 points by ABrandt ↗ HN
I'm in the very early stages of development right now, but with such a complex industry I thought it'd be good to get some feedback from HN.

Circuit192 is simply an online arbitration platform. Its a form of alternative dispute resolution that is usually legally binding.

To use the service, first two parties would agree to the terms of the arbitration. They then both submit a testimony and supporting documents to the service. We'll then select a professional from the appropriate industry (through LinkedIn) to fairly arbitrate the dispute. The point is to make the whole process as painless as possible, while still giving just and valid resolutions.

So what do you think? Potential business or legal nightmare? (I'm leaning towards both myself). Thanks in advance as always.

Link: http://circuit192.austinbrandt.net/hn/

More details: http://austinbrandt.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/business-idea-voluntary-arbitration-network/

3 comments

[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 40.9 ms ] thread
aspir
I'm not a J.D., but I think you're going down a legal path that can't be taken. It seems very weak from a legal standpoint that anything not approved but a judge or JP in a courtroom setting would be binding. Since your users already have the courts or lawsuits on the mind, you could become the next target for promising something that won't have legs in court.

If it were positioned as a mediation/negotiation service (not a judging service) to reach congenial resolution before the need for a court appearance, you may have something. But make sure you get every lawyer you can find to look at this to find the potential legal repercussions.

ABrandt
Thanks for the feedback aspir, you really hit on the main point of conflict for me at this point. I haven't yet decided whether I want to bill this as a judging or negotiation service. In accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925, this type of dispute resolution actually is binding. The Supreme Court has ruled on this several times in fact. If the parties so choose, however, they may choose to state in the terms of the arbitration that judicial review may be sought afterwards as well.

I see the problem being more of whether people would be willing to have a binding decision enforced upon them by an online service. Establishing legitimacy while bootstrapping is going to be tough.

And yes, I will certainly get every set of lawyer eyeballs on this as I can before launch. Thanks again!