Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is when there are any means necessary used to settle disputes outside of the courtroom. Some elements of ADR includes: evaluation, negotiation, conciliation, mediation, and arbitration. There are many reasons people consider using alternate means of dispute resolution outside of the courtroom including: lengthy court processes, higher cost of litigation, time consuming process, and emotional burdens of meeting the other party in court. Additionally, more states have begun to experiment with ADR programs for the citizens of the state to utilize alternate options aside from the courts. While some of the state programs are voluntary other programs are mandatory.
One of the first attempts commonly used to settle a dispute using ADR is negotiation. Negotiation is typically the first attempt made to resolve a dispute outside of the courtroom and is a preeminent way to resolve a dispute. This form of ADR allows the parties to meet privately to attempt to settle a dispute. Additionally this ADR method allows the parties an opportunity to control the process themselves and the possible solutions presented. Negotiations can be made with or without legal counsel present depending on the parties’ ability to communicate with each other.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Alternate Dispute Resolution".
Another effective form of ADR is through mediation which is also a relaxed substitute to litigation. Mediators are not attorneys but rather professional individuals who have been trained in negotiations and are able to bring both parties together. With this meeting the mediator attempts to work out a settlement or other suitable solution both parties find agreeable. While mediators are not attorneys, their abilities are very useful in disputes to help resolve tough issues. As seen in Sternlight’s article, mediators have the ability to find resolutions outside of the legal process with the following statement “Studies of litigation have shown that non-lawyer representatives can be as effective as or sometimes more effective than attorneys, depending on their expertise and familiarity with the particular type of dispute” (Sternlight, 2010, p. 411). Mediation is an effective form of ADR to help parties resolve disputes outside of the courtroom.
Arbitration is possibly the most common form of ADR. An arbitration agreement includes the necessary information to describe which disagreements are subject to an ADR. The arbitration agreement is also helpful because it will classify all requirements and information needed to enable the ADR to happen and function effectively. An arbitration agreement will include events and method for the arbitration. In difficult disputes, parties will typically agree that all disputes that arise proceeding which cannot be resolved within a short timeframe of the dispute initiating the ADR process for arbitration are beneficial to all parties. The scope of the dispute is defined in the arbitration agreement along with supporting evidence provided by one or more of the parties.
ADR methods are alternatives to the litigation process. The full litigation process is when there is a lawsuit brought by one person or entity, against another person or entity for the purposes of settling a dispute. ADR is the opposite of judicial dispute resolution also known as litigation because the parties are using a method outside of the judicial system to resolve the dispute. Persons involved with ADR include: plaintiffs, defendants, applicants, petitioners, and respondents (HG Experts, 2011). Since litigation is costly, time consuming, and does not always provide the best solution to the dispute ADR methods are commonly used. Disputes using ADR can be resolved effectively and efficiently out of the court system and have a desirable and fair solution for all parties involved.
- HG Experts. “Management Litigation Support HGExperts.com.” Expert Witness Directory
Expert Witnesses Nationwide. N.p., 2011. Web. 23 Aug. 2015. - Sternlight, J. R. (2010). Lawyerless dispute resolution: Rethinking a paradigm. Fordham Urban
Law Journal, 37(1), 381-418.
