Here are the results from my analysis of securities arbitration awards made in San Francisco, California, during the first half of 2009 before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). The claimants that did the worst were the ones who handled their own cases on a pro se basis. Pro se is Latin for “on one’s own behalf.” I could find only one instance where a pro se claimant recovered anything at all during the first half of 2009. In that case, the claimant, who was asking for $37,500 in damages, was awarded a mere $792.
Excluding pro se cases, claimants who went to hearing before San Francisco arbitrators in the first half of 2009 with an attorney prevailed 37.5% of the time. This is well below the national average reported by FINRA. According to FINRA, claimants received favorable awards in 47% of all arbitration hearings held during the first half of 2009.
Another telling statistic is the amount recovered by claimants who did win. After weeding out claims with questionable or uncertain damage claims, I found that claimants who won in San Francisco received awards that averaged 59% of their claimed damages during the first half of 2009. Choosing the right arbitrators can have a large impact on the outcome of a case. In reviewing awards, I notice that some San Francisco arbitrators who sat on multiple cases consistently ruled against claimants.
One final note: In each of the cases where the claimants did quite well, they were represented by an experienced securities arbitration attorney. Retaining a knowledgeable securities attorney and having fair-minded arbitrators appointed to a case can have a huge impact on the success or failure of a securities arbitration proceeding–especially in San Francisco where every little bit helps.