Alternative Dispute Resolution is defined as “methods of resolving disputes other than litigation” (Cheeseman, 2010). Alternative Dispute Resolution By far the most common form of ADR is arbitration, however other types of ADR exist such as negotiation, mediation, conciliation, mini-trial, fact-finding, and the use of a judicial referee. “Negotiation is a procedure whereby the parties to a dispute engage in negotiations to try to reach a voluntary settlement of their dispute” (Cheeseman, 2010). Negotiations can go on for an extended amount of time to ensure that both parties are satisfied.
Mediation is another type of ADR in which all parties involved in the issue select and agreed to use neutral third party that assumes the role of an intermediary that between both parties. The sole purpose of this intermediary is to facilitate a settlement between the parties. If an accord is reached by the disputing parties, then a settlement agreement is written and executed by the parties. Conciliation is a method of ADR frequently used when the parties involve do not wish to face each other in a confrontational venue. In this method an interested party known as a conciliator assists the party’s dispute to reach a settlement.
The conciliator facilitates this process by the communicating offers and counter-offers of settlement between the two parties. Traditional Litigation System The traditional litigation system is where two parties (defendant and plaintiff) go forward in a court of law to solve a certain issue that they have with each other. In a traditional legal system the contents of the case publicity is not considered because adverse publicity is what is associated with litigation. The expenses in the traditional litigation system can become expensive and costly; this is the reason that some people chose Alternative Dispute Resolutions.
Differences between Systems The two legal systems have some major differences. In the ADR system the resolution is usually less formal and less intimidating than in the traditional legal system. The resolutions are quicker and less expensive, the dispute is usually heard by an arbitrator or mediator and at the end of the “trail” the respondents will receive an opinion which can be filed with the court to become binding and turned into a judgment. The traditional legal system or trials are usually a more formal and slower process.
The trials are more expensive because of the length of the trials. Trials are often heard before a judge and the judgments are binding through the court systems. Conclusion A person has to choose to decide which of the legal systems work best for them. It is important for a claimant to compare and contrast the impact that either of the systems would have on their particular situation.