Litigation vs Adr

Litigation vs. ADR

Conflict is an everyday part of life. Most people are able to resolve conflict before it becomes a dispute amongst themselves. However, when conflict escalates to a dispute between two or more parties, it becomes necessary to employ the help of others to resolve the dispute fairly. From a legal standpoint, there are two main avenues for dispute resolution: tradition litigation and alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

Litigation is the process by which the court system is used to resolve the dispute. Legal representation is used to represent the positions of their clients (conflicting parties) in negotiations and subsequent court hearings. Litigation is a formal legal process by which all information relevant to the issues regarding the dispute are brought to bear and ultimately decided by the presiding judge. Resolution is slow (can take upwards of a year), expensive, and can sometimes result in a ruling that favors neither party (Cornell, n.d.).

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), on the other hand, seeks to resolve disputes outside of court by any means other than litigation and usually involve a disinterested third party - a mediator or arbitration panel. Examples include arbitration, mediation, neutral evaluation, and negotiation. ADR is similar to litigation in that it will use a process to bring information regarding the dispute out as evidence (however on a more limited basis) and use it to reach a decision between both parties (Lewis, 2010).

ADR is increasingly favored over traditional litigation because of many factors. For one, timeliness; ADR by design can reach a conclusion on dicey subjects in a week's time or less. Another great reason for using ADR over litigation is cost. ADR is typically orders of magnitude cheaper than litigation in the long run. Another great point is that courts will rarely overturn an ADR decision provided both parties entered into contract to use it. Finally, ADR...