UNTIL JULY 1, 1976, THERE WERE TWO GENERALLY ACCEPTED WAYS IN WHICH LEGITIMATE CLAIMS COULD BE RESOLVED IN CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL CASES -- BY SETTLEMENT OR BY TRIAL. SINCE JULY 1 OF 1976, THERE HAS BEEN A THIRD METHOD AVAILABLE FOR RESOLVING SUPERIOR COURT CASES -- ARBITRATION -- WHICH OFFERS THE POSSIBILITY OF SPEEDIER ADJUDICATION, REDUCED PRESSURE ON TRIAL DOCKETS, AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADJUDICATE CASES WHICH WOULD BE ECONOMICALLY INFEASIBLE TO TRY UNDER CONVENTIONAL PROCEDURES. THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1141.10 DIRECTS THAT THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL PROVIDE RULES FOR A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ARBITRATION FOR THE FOLLOWING CASES IN SUPERIOR COURTS: ANY CAUSE, UPON STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED; AND ANY CAUSE ELECTED BY THE PLAINTIFF WHERE THE PLAINTIFF AGREES THAT THE AWARD SHALL NOT EXCEED $7,500. THE PARTIES ARE ENCOURAGED TO DESIGNATE AN ARBITRATOR OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING; AND WHERE THIS IS NOT DONE, A RANDOM SELECTION PROCESS USING NAMES FROM AN ESTABLISHED ARBITRATION PANEL IS EMPLOYED. THE PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING THE MEMBERSHIP OF ARBITRATION PANELS IS DISCUSSED, AND ASPECTS OF THE ARBITRATION HEARING CONSIDERED INCLUDE THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE HEARING, DISCOVERY, EVIDENCE, AND RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS. MATTERS DISCUSSED WITH REFERENCE TO OPTIONS AFTER THE AWARD COME UNDER THE HEADINGS OF 'EFFECT OF FAILING TO REQUEST TRIAL,' 'TRIAL AFTER ARBITRATION,' AND 'WAIVER OF RIGHT TO TRIAL.' IT IS NOTED THAT IN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT A CASE SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION UNDER THE RULES, IT IS IMPORTANT TO DETERMINE IF COUNSEL AND CLIENT WILL ACCEPT A REASONABLE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE LESS THAN THE AMOUNT PREFERRED. POTENTIAL PARTIES CONSIDERING ARBITRATION ARE CAUTIONED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE RULES OF EVIDENCE ARE A HYBRID OF COURTROOM AND ARBITRATION RULES, AND CONSEQUENTLY PREPARATION FOR THE ARBITRATION HEARING AND THE STYLE OF PRESENTATION MUST BE ADJUSTED FOR THESE DIFFERENCES.