You take a shot at a lawyer you know nothing about. I ask a simple question and you avoid it and post some non-sense.
If this was a serious question then the answer is yes. Now how about you asnswer my last question without deflecting.
On this topic, I need not deflect; I am happy to answer any question you have. (But, ftr, I think a poll asking which of us has been deflecting here would land resoundingly on someone other than me.)
The fact that you seem to have uniquely found some attorney who will charge you "big bucks" for a federal lawsuit, but charge you nothing (i.e. contingency) for an arbitration which -- contrary to your earlier assertions -- does in fact include discovery and the possibility of counterclaims, does not -- again, contrary to your earlier assertions -- mean that arbitration has a "leg up" on suing in court, for most people. In fact it doesn't even mean that for
you, but if you're entire argument in favor of arbitration these last several pages comes down down to the fact that you've found some guy who will take your Chase arbitration claim on contingency, well, I think that speaks for itself. Let's just not hide behind answering questions with other questions and words like "discovery," "counter-suit," and "binding."
TLDR; CV thinks arbitration is better because he has a guy who will take his case on contingency.
Oh, and to answer your (relevant? irrelevant?) question, I've been involved in dozens of arbitrations with "CC companies."
