October 08, 2012
Traditional Litigation vs. ADR
Solving disputes in the legal realm can be a very complicated and costly endeavor, and it is important to recognize the most effective method to reach a reasonable solution. Traditional litigation and ADR are both effective means of solving such a dispute. When comparing and contrasting the best way to solve a civil dispute, it is very important to first determine which would be more beneficial, traditional litigation or ADR. Both have many benefits and both have drawbacks, however it is the civil dispute that should determine which is the most beneficial. Traditional Litigation
Traditional litigation is a legal method for settling disputes between parties such as: people, organizations, and the State. During the process of litigation a case, also known as a lawsuit, is carried before a court of law that has jurisdiction over the case. The feuding parties present their sides to receive a judgment (BusinessDictionary.com, 2012.) Traditional litigation is a slower process than ADR, but it is also a more formal process. The litigation process is more expensive. Lawyers are very costly and then there are court fees and various fees involved during research and general time consumption (Harms, 2011.) However, it is heard before a judge and results in a formal judgment. A formal judgment means that the decision is enforceable through the court system. ADR by its very informality leaves the decision free to disregard case precedence which leaves the outcome unpredictable (Cheeseman, 2010.) Traditional litigation is somewhat more predictable through following procedure and being able to appeal. Traditional litigation allows the parties to obtain documents, enter testimony, and gather evidence from the other party even if the other party is unwilling (Harms, 2011.) There are many reasons to choose traditional litigation over ADR. If the civil dispute involves...