Investor Justice

There is a systemic flaw in the investor protection landscape. Unrepresented investors face off against well-resourced repeat- player firms that almost always have lawyers. While consumers face similar challenges in civil courts, in forced securities arbitration, the decisionmaker may not have a law degree, is prohibited from conducting any outside legal research, and has no monetary incentive to read materials the parties submit. These realities amplify already-existing informational and resource asymmetries between Main Street investors and stockbrokers and undermine the market-legitimizing function of securities arbitration. Despite being designed to permit investors to recoup losses without the aid of an attorney, the mandatory securities arbitration system has evolved into a process that investors cannot navigate on their own. This Article explores the unintended consequences of procedural changes designed to improve and professionalize the mandatory securities arbitration forum. In addition to shedding light on structural norms that disproportionately impact average investors, this Article proposes interventions to ameliorate those burdens. In so doing, it contributes to ongoing discourse concerning investor protection, procedural justice in forced arbitration, and access to justice for regular people.