Problems with court-annexed mandatory arbitration: Illustrations from the New Mexico experience

Court-annexed mandatory arbitration (CAMA) has been promoted as a way of settling cases before trial. However, many CAMA programs contain provisions that impermissibly coerce the parties into settlement. This Article examines these issues and other issues presented by the CAMA programs adopted in New Mexico. The experience with CAMA in New Mexico indicates that CAMA may actually increase the number of cases filed in court. The Article concludes that CAMA programs present serious constitutional issues and coercively decrease access to the courts, and that CAMA should be eliminated and that courts should utilize other mechanisms to resolve cases before trial.