Traditional Litigation vs. Non-traditional ADR
University of Phoenix – LAW/531
March 18, 2012
Several of the non-traditional forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) offer benefits that traditional litigation cannot offer. The following few paragraphs will compare and contrast traditional litigation as compared to the more non-traditional forms of ADR.
Litigation vs. Non-Traditional ADR
Determining the ideal method for resolving a business dispute can be a challenge for businesses. A business that does not have a large cash reserve and time to sit in a court room may need to consider the non-traditional forms of dispute resolution. In some cases clients insist that the cases be heard and decided by a judge, at which point traditional litigation would be the course of action. (Steven Harms, 2011) Some of the most popular forms of non-traditional ADR are Arbitration, Mediation and Negotiation. Arbitration is a legal technique where the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons, the arbitrators, by whose decision they agree to be bound. ("Arbitration," 2012) Some of the advantages of arbitration over traditional litigation is usually must faster to come to an agreement, it cost less money and usually the proceedings and terms of the agreement do not make it to the public. In contrast a traditional trial can last quite a long time and can become very expensive, as the judge and jury come to a conclusion, not to mention the media attention that the case could potentially get bringing both parties into the spot light. Mediation is another way of resolving disputes between two or more parties with concrete effects. (“Mediation,” 2012) One of the biggest advantages of Mediation is avoiding the high costs associated with a trial. As a mediator is normally a third party who aides in working with both parties to come to an agreement, confidentiality is usually maintained in this form of non-traditional dispute resolution...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document