Normally, the courts will NOT retry the case but will automatically enforce the judgement of the arbitrator absent showing of bias, fraud or the like on the part of the arbitrator. In most cases, the strict rules of evidence seen in Court are relaxed somewhat, no jury is provided, merely an arbitrator or a panel of three arbitrators, and their judgement, once rendered is then entered in court by motion of the prevailing party. Nevertheless, most arbitrators do follow the basic procedure of an American court room and cross examination, opening and closing arguments and the like are common. American rules of evidence may be rigidly enforced by the arbitrators but seldom are. Quite often arbitrators allow types of evidence, such as written statements, that would not be allowed in a court of law due to the Hearsay Evidence rules.
Arbitration is also a private forum.
They are also private forums so that competitors and the public do not have access to information and testimony that the parties may not wish to have made public. The disadvantages are significant, however. Arbitrators are given tremendous latitude in their procedures and judgements and absent outrageous conduct or judgements on their part, the Courts will not review their actions. While in civil courts the judges are held to strict application of the law and the complex procedures and rules of evidence, the courts have consistently held that such strict compliance is NOT required of arbitrators who may use any and all equitable procedures or common sense and fairness to determine how to hear a matter. This gives the typical arbitrator far more power than the average judge.