There is no civil litigation matter that is complete without considering alternative dispute resolution, also known as ADR. The importance of ADR is increasing as most cases settle outside of court instead of going to a dispute resolution law firm. Most of the disputes that are due have been successfully resolved under dispute resolution.
However, alternative dispute resolution is not a solution for every civil argument. In some cases, employing dispute resolution is not a wise and sound idea. It is considered a potential waste compared to traditional litigation. If you have any pending civil matters and want to know how dispute resolution works, continue reading.
Benefits of Alternative Dispute Resolution
Alternative Dispute Resolution helps to save money and speeds up the settlement process. In this process, parties play an essential role in resolving their issues. It often provides benefits like creative solutions, longer-lasting outcomes, greater satisfaction, and improved relationships.
Whether dispute resolution will work or not totally depends on the individual facts of the case. Let us now look at the guidelines for when it is likely to work and when it probably won’t.
Cases Where Alternative Dispute Resolution is Potential
1. Maintaining relationships: If litigants genuinely value their relationships with one another, ADR is a means by which they will seek to resolve their dispute. For example, two businesses with a long history of effective and mutually beneficial cooperation will naturally want that relationship to continue. Thus, keeping the parties on good terms with each other is one of the main goals of ADR.
2. Serious commitment among the parties: If the disputing parties have a serious bond, then they can avoid litigation. They can choose mediation, arbitration, negotiation, international commercial arbitration, or other methods to solve the argument. Alternative dispute resolution has much higher chances of success. When litigants give ADR a chance, they win at all costs.
3. An objective evaluation. It is not a good idea to refer every civil dispute to ADR and hope for the best. Before sending a case to ADR, consider the facts and circumstances of the civil case. Therefore, objective analysis can help to evaluate the nature of the allegations, the potential risks of the litigation (including damages and other financial risks), the potential benefits of ADR, and other factors.
Cases Where Alternative Dispute Resolution is a Failure
1. Less experienced: ADR is only as effective when the third party (such as an arbitrator or mediator) chosen to resolve the matter is neutral. For example, a family law mediator who does not have experience with equitable distribution is not the right choice to mediate a divorce agreement involving complex assets. Likewise, an arbitrator with insufficient expertise in a particular industry may not be the right person to handle a breach of the contract dispute.
2. Issues of public interest. Consider a civil lawsuit in which an investment advisor is accused of defrauding you of ten million dollars. Suppose further that the victims were elderly or financially vulnerable individuals and the scandal made national news. Cases such as these involve a degree of moral outrage that necessarily touches the public’s interest in holding certain parties accountable. Therefore, ADR may not be a good idea.
3. Misuse of power: Some cases, such as divorce and sexual harassment cases, raise issues of abuse and power imbalances. For example, if there are allegations of domestic violence in a family law matter, Alternative dispute resolution may not be attainable. It works best when the parties involved are roughly on the same page. Litigation is generally undesirable when it is not.
In conclusion
Alternate dispute resolution involves collective terms such as mediation, arbitration, etc. This enables parties to resolve their disputes without litigation. Rattsakuten provides dispute resolution in international law and handles numerous dispute resolution matters.
