Why Do Courts Need Mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution

Time and money are two of the most valuable assets to mankind. For centuries success has been measured by some aspect of time and money. In our daily exchanges in trying to conserve or acquire these assets, disputes arise that can result in legal act. Courts nationwide deal with millions of cases a year. Court cases are can take years and thousands of dollars before resolutions are meet. Due to this consumption of our most valued assets people seek alternative resolutions that have been proven to effectively and efficiently resolve disputes. Courts should require alternative dispute resolution during the pretrial period because it can save time and money.
Mandatory alternative dispute resolution saves time because it combines the pretrial and the trial process into one efficient procedure. The pretrial process involves four major phases of pleading, discovery, pretrial motions, and settlement conference. Each of these phases require
The form courts should require is mediation because it is more efficient and effective than arbitration. When issues arise it is usually because each party knows what they want, however they cannot come to a consensus. Mediation is the best tool to resolve the issue because instead of having to settle for an decision or award selected by an arbitrator, the mediator can help the parties create a middle ground that incorporates what both parties may want. Arbitration is very similar to the court proceedings. Due to the fact the arbitration does not always result in a faster resolution, which is possibly due to the court similarities, parties can end up undergoing a court experience. This can result in a less efficient alternative. Whereas mediation does not reflect that of a court experience, which can lead to a more efficient alternative. Therefore, if parties are seeking alternatives to the court trial then it should be different from the court