November 12, 2012
Litigation VS ADR
The desired end result of both traditional litigation and nontraditional forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is a resolution to an existing issue or problem. These two methods, however, are used in different ways. Traditional litigation usually involves a judge and or jury that come to a conclusion and offer a decision. The alternative attempts to reach a decision without involving a judge and or jury. Traditional litigation and judicial dispute resolution usually involve a plaintiff and defendant that are represented by an attorney. The attorneys present information to a third party that consists of a judge and or jury. ADR usually consists of a third party hearing both sides of the story. In any of the instances a third party such as a judge, jury, or arbitrator makes the final ruling. Having a case heard by and judge and or jury can become very time consuming and expensive. Fees that are charged by attorneys, and court costs, can add up very quickly. The trial process consists of jury selection, if either party requests one, opening statements, the plaintiff’s case, the defendant’s case, rebuttal and rejoinder, closing arguments, jury instructions, jury deliberation and verdict, and entry of judgment (Cheeseman 2010). ADR can be a much faster way for two disputing parties to reach a resolution and that both parties are happy with. The first step in ADR is usually negotiations. This gives the disputing parties the opportunity to reach an agreement on their own. If a settlement cannot be reached then a mediator or arbitrator can be used. A mediator is used to basically get both involved parties to communicate in an attempt to reach a settlement. The mediator does not make a ruling based on the information presented by the parties but is mainly used to get both sides to try and reach their own resolution. If a resolution cannot be made by using a mediator then the two parties can...