Business Law 531
March 11, 2013
Alternative Dispute Resolutions
Traditional litigation and nontraditional Alternative Dispute Resolution both seek to settle disputes however litigation is more costly than ADR. Therefore, plaintiffs should consider the use of ADR before requesting a trial. Traditional Litigation
Parties may pursue ADR, as well as, traditional litigation in trying to resolve a dispute however the latter is more complex and costly. The traditional litigation system is the process of bringing, maintaining, and defending a lawsuit in a court of law. It can have many processes before a judgment is reached. These processes include the pretrial litigation process: pleading, discovery, dismissals, pretrial judgment and settlement conference. In traditional litigation the case can be tried by judge or by jury. If the case is to be judged by a jury the process will proceed with jury selection. Then on to opening statements, the plaintiff’s case, the defendant’s case, rebuttles, closing arguments, jury instructions, jury deliberation and verdict, and finally the entry of judgment (which can be appealed). These procedures are complex, time consuming and at times very costly. Trials can be costly in terms of Lawyer and other fees, the loss of time by key personnel, as well as other factors. Moreover, parties should consider the probability of winning or losing and the amount to be won or lost. In a study about trails vs. settlements, Randall L. Keiser says “That the clear lesson of a soon-to-be-released study of civil lawsuits has found that most of the plaintiffs who decided to pass up a settlement offer and went to trial ended up getting less money than if they had taken that offer” (Jonathan, 2008, para. 2). If the amount to be won is less than the cost of a trial then ADR may be more advantageous. Alternative Dispute Resolution
Alternative Dispute Resolution offers parties a...