May 5, 2013
Traditional and Nontraditional Litigation The traditional litigation system and the nontraditional forms of the alternative dispute resolutions (ADR) have several similarities as well as differences. There are numerous legal processes available to companies to resolve disputes other than using the traditional litigation system such as arbitration, negotiation, mediation, conciliation, mini-trial, fact-finding, and a judicial referee. Even though there are differences between the traditional litigation system and the nontraditional forms of ADR there is situations that call for both types of these litigation systems to be used in conjunction with each other. The following document compares and contrasts the traditional litigation system and the nontraditional forms of ADR. The document also examines the risks that businesses encounter when dealing with traditional litigation and when ADR might be a more appropriate measure in order for business mangers to reduce those risks. Traditional Litigation
One of the main similarities of the traditional litigation system and the nontraditional forms of ADR consists of the common objective to resolve an issue between two parties. The traditional and nontraditional litigation systems require representation by an attorney or a mediator. Occasionally a mediator or an arbitrator is needed for both situations. An array of traditional and nontraditional litigations forms exists depending on the circumstances of the case. Traditional litigation systems involve suit, answer, discovery, trial, and jury. According to Barron, (2013) “The traditional litigation system, the civil suit officially commences with the filing of a complaint in court by the plaintiff” (para. 2). The defendant has 21 days from the time which he or she is served the summons to file an answer to the plaintiff.
An answer is when the defendant serves and responds back to the plaintiff in writing. According to Cheeseman, (2010) “In the answer, the defendant admits or denies the allegations contained in the plaintiff’s complaint” (p. 35). If the defendant denies these allegations then the case continues on. Discovery
After the complaint and answer have been filed with the court a discovery will be executed. According to Cheeseman, (2010) “During discovery, each party engages in various activities to discover facts of the case from the other party and witnesses prior to trial” (p. 38). The discovery is performed with the court’s supervision and the parties involved voluntarily exchange documents and information related to the issues in the suit. Both parties use the discovery process to help them prepare for the trial, protect evidence, save time, and settle the case. Trial
The plaintiff and the defendant have the right to a fair jury trial conducted in the federal court. The parties submit to the judge a trial brief that involves legal arguments for each of them regarding the case. The jury acquires the facts in the trial. According to Barron, (2013) “The jury assesses the credibility of witnesses and makes a determination of whether the plaintiff has met the burden of proof” (para. 3). Jury
The jurors are required and are selected to speak and seek out the truth in every case they are involved in. The attorneys for the plaintiff and the defendant are permitted to ask potential jurors questions to establish if the individual would be biased with their decisions. After the jury is selected the individuals swear in and the trial is ready to start. Risks of Traditional Litigation
There are several risks businesses encounter when dealing with traditional litigation. According to Foster, (2013) “Lawyers’ fees alone can be substantial for a business engaged in an ongoing lawsuit, but businesses must also worry...