Traditional and Nontraditional Forms of Adr
The recent litigation system in the United States shows that there are 10% or fewer cases that go on trial. At the same time, there are 90% of cases that are resolved before the trial by some process of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Carver, 2004). Because of less complexity and more flexibility many parties prefer ADR. In United States, the rising popularity of ADR has huge impact on businesses, government and people to avoid problems such as: time, legal fees and expenses.
The similarities to traditional litigation system with the nontraditional forms of ADR are, they both reach to a resolution, but the methods they approach are different. In a traditional litigation system a complaint is filed with a court and a plaintiff will respond to the complaint in a certain wait period or in the order it was received. On response from plaintiff, each party is allowed to present their case in a pre-trial and further followed by a trial. The final decision will be issued by a judge or a jury based on the evidence from each party. “The most common form of ADR is arbitration. Other forms of ADR are negotiation, mediation, conciliation, mini-trial, fact-finding and using a judicial referee” (Cheeseman, 2010). ADR has different approaches to resolve a dispute. It is believed that negotiation is a simplest form of ADR. Negotiation is a method, when the parties involved in a lawsuit, meet to find an alternative resolution such as compromise or agreeable resolution related to the dispute prior to the trial. Negotiation is flexible and parties may choose this method before and after filing the lawsuit. Further it can be applied before other forms of ADR’s are engaged in. Arbitration is a method, when the parties involved in a lawsuit, choose a third party who is impartial and neutral to resolve the dispute. The third party is referred as Arbitrators. Arbitrators can make final decisions. This method is normally used in consumer and employment matters
The similarities to traditional litigation system with the nontraditional forms of ADR are, they both reach to a resolution, but the methods they approach are different. In a traditional litigation system a complaint is filed with a court and a plaintiff will respond to the complaint in a certain wait period or in the order it was received. On response from plaintiff, each party is allowed to present their case in a pre-trial and further followed by a trial. The final decision will be issued by a judge or a jury based on the evidence from each party. “The most common form of ADR is arbitration. Other forms of ADR are negotiation, mediation, conciliation, mini-trial, fact-finding and using a judicial referee” (Cheeseman, 2010). ADR has different approaches to resolve a dispute. It is believed that negotiation is a simplest form of ADR. Negotiation is a method, when the parties involved in a lawsuit, meet to find an alternative resolution such as compromise or agreeable resolution related to the dispute prior to the trial. Negotiation is flexible and parties may choose this method before and after filing the lawsuit. Further it can be applied before other forms of ADR’s are engaged in. Arbitration is a method, when the parties involved in a lawsuit, choose a third party who is impartial and neutral to resolve the dispute. The third party is referred as Arbitrators. Arbitrators can make final decisions. This method is normally used in consumer and employment matters
References: Carver, T. B. (2004, Aug-Oct). ADR-A Competitive Imperative for Business. Dispute Resolution Journal, 59(3), 67-79. Cheeseman, H. R. (2010). Business law: Legal environment, online commerce, business ethics, and international issues. Upper addle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.