There are many challenges in resolving disputes in court; it can be time-consuming and costly. For this reason, people often explore other avenues of resolving disputes out of court. Alternative Dispute resolution is structured and intended to provide the same just resolutions through a neutral party, as would be obtained in court. Possible ways of ADR include arbitration, neutral evaluation, settlement conferences, and mediation.
Mediation uses a neutral party to intervene by leading talks between the aggrieved parties, to help the reach a mutual decision; the mediator does not make the decision for the parties (Courts.ca.gov). Mediation is appropriate in cases where there is a relationship that needs to be nurtured like in the case of business partners disagreeing (Courts.ca.gov). It is, however, not very appropriate for cases where parties hold strong positions and are unwilling to compromise. Mediation is successful where the aggrieved parties are willing to make consent ions are open minded enough to engage with each other.
On the other hand, arbitration involves an arbitrator, who hears all the sides to the argument and decides on the way forward (Courts.ca.gov). Arbitration can be binding, where parties agree to commit to the decision of the arbitrator, or non-binding where they leave open the possibility of appealing against the decision made in a court of law (Courts.ca.gov). It is suitable for cases where the parties want the decision made by a third party but would like to avoid the long court process. It is not suitable for cases where parties would like to have control over the decision made, since here; the final decision depends entirely on the arbitrator.
The other category is neutral evaluation; which relies on an evaluator who weighs in his expert opinion, analyzing the arguments presented by both parties, weighing their merits and demerits then advising on possible solutions (Courts.ca.gov). The parties then use this information provided to decide on how to come to an agreement or which other means to use to resolve their case. This method is suitable for cases that involve technicalities which need an expert’s opinion to help the parties understand it better.
Finally, the other option is a settlement conference which occurs between the attorneys on the parties involved in the dispute. The conference is held by a judge or a settlement officer. It is sometimes used as part of the court process and is mandatory in this case, while sometimes parties voluntarily opt for a settlement conference (Courts.ca.gov).
In order of value, for business cases, evaluation should come first. This is because business cases are often complex; getting expert analysis and a recommendation f possible channels of resolution would be crucial. On the other hand, many people do not often know the options available to them. Mediation and arbitration come next with mediation being the most preferable. This is since these two offer a faster means of resolving the problem without hurting business relations to a great extent. They give the parties some control on the pace of the process and the middle-parties involved. A settlement conference is of the least value since it involves a bit of a litigation process which might take away the benefits of an out of court settlement. However, a settlement conference might be appropriate where there are other legal factors to consider; where lawyers’ input is required.
Works Cited
Courts.ca.gov,. "ADR Types & Benefits - Alternative_Dispute_Resolution". N.p., 2016. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.
