What is alternative dispute resolution and why should you care?

Alternative dispute resolution, sometimes referred to as “ADR” or simply “dispute resolution,” is a way of settling disputes without having to go through expensive and elongated litigation that can often create additional contempt between the parties involved. Now if you are asking yourself why an attorney would be singing the praises of an alternative to litigation, it is important to note that we at Hunter Law Group believe that the best resolution is the one that preserves as much capital and as many relationships as possible. 

Often, there are many ways to achieve a goal if you have an experienced and creative team. Those solutions do not have to involve costly litigation if there are key aspects that can be agreed upon. With that in mind, here is what you need to know about the most common forms of alternative dispute resolution. 

What is alternative dispute resolution?

Typically, parties in disagreement will file lawsuits that drag their entire sphere of shared contacts into testifying for-or-against one another. If you can imagine, this is not something those mutual connections look forward to doing, and ends up putting a strain on those individual’s relationship with both parties. Not only that, but the lawsuits can often lead to long drawn out trials and conflict that can create a lifetime of hard feelings. 

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a way to settle disputes without litigation, using methods that allow the involved parties to understand each other’s position and help identify mutually satisfactory solutions. Below are four of the most common ways in which this is able to be achieved.

Mediation

When the parties involved have a relationship they want to preserve, mediation may be a good option for resolving the dispute. In mediation, an impartial person called a "mediator" helps the parties try to reach a mutually acceptable resolution of the dispute. The mediator does not decide the dispute but helps the parties communicate so they can try to settle the dispute themselves. Mediation leaves control of the outcome with the parties. When tensions are high due to a lack of productive communication, or an inability to see the other perspective perhaps due to framing or phrasing, mediation can help reduce tensions and help the parties involved see eye-to-eye. As a result, mediation is great for reducing emotions, opening up more productive channels of communication, and preserving relationships between business partners, members of a smaller community, neighbors, or family members.  

Arbitration

Arbitration is often a good solution for disputes where the parties involved want another person to decide the outcome, but would like to save the time, cost, and the reputational risk of a trial. In arbitration, a neutral person called an "arbitrator" hears arguments and evidence from each side and then decides the outcome of the dispute. Arbitration is less formal than a trial, and the rules of evidence are often relaxed. 

Arbitration can either be binding or non-binding. Binding arbitration means that the parties involved have waived their right to a trial, and they have agreed to accept the arbitrator’s decision as final, usually without a right of appeal. Meanwhile, non-binding arbitration allows for the parties to still request a trial if they do not accept the arbitrator’s decision. This can be particularly effective in times where the arbitrator is a subject matter expert or has an in-depth knowledge of the space in which the dispute resides. 

Neutral Evaluation

Since the evaluator is often an expert in the subject matter being discussed, neutral evaluations are often best reserved for when there are more specific or technical disagreements that do not necessarily require heavy emotional management and delving into the relevant interpersonal psychological aspects in play. In neutral evaluation, each party gets a chance to present the case to a neutral person called an "evaluator." The evaluator then gives an opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of each party's evidence and arguments and about how the dispute could be resolved. The evaluator is often an expert in the subject matter of the dispute. Although the evaluator's opinion is not binding, the parties typically use it as a basis for trying to negotiate a resolution of the dispute

Settlement Conferences

Settlement conferences may be either mandatory or voluntary. In both types of settlement conferences, the parties and their attorneys meet with a judge or a neutral person called a "settlement officer" to discuss possible settlement of their dispute. The judge or settlement officer does not make a decision in the case but assists the parties in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the case and in negotiating a settlement. Settlement conferences are appropriate in any case where settlement is an option. Mandatory settlement conferences are often held close to the date a case is set for trial.

Unlike adversarial approaches such as litigation, ADR proceedings are usually less costly and are able to reach a faster conclusion. This is part of the reason why they are currently being used for real estate disputes, partnership disagreements, fractured contract arrangements, development projects, and even asset arrangements in divorce proceedings. For more information on how to successfully implement alternative dispute resolution into a situation you or someone you know may be a part of, send me a message or contact the Hunter Law Group team at https://hunterlawgrouppa.com/.