Law/531 Adr Analysis
Running head: TRADITIONAL AND NONTRADITIONAL LITIGATION PAPER
Traditional and Nontraditional Litigation Paper Week One
Name
Law/531
Date
Instructor
For many years, litigation has been the one thing in reference to the law that traditionally resolves lawsuits and disputes. There are many facts that need to be considered when one compares or contrasts traditional litigation methods to the nontraditional litigation methods (Alternate Dispute Resolution). Handled outside of litigation in court, ADR is a unique resolution. ADR’s types include “arbitration, collaborative law, mediation and negotiation. Conciliation is sometimes included as a fifth category” (Alternate Dispute Resolution Law, 2011).
The traditional system has multiple means of solving a case, in comparison to non-traditional ADR approaches. Traditional litigation involves public exposure that involves an individual or a company. Due to the fact that the case has public exposure, the company’s image could be negatively affected. The plaintiff of a case needs to have contains burden of verification, when using traditional litigation. It is implied that time and effort is needed to collect proof by way of evidence, witnesses and any other factors that may be used to sway a judge or jury. Any case requires costs in relation to time and effort. Mitigating factors such as the discovery process uncovers both parties’ advantages and disadvantages.
The benefit of ADR, allows a legal issue to be resolved without having to spend as much money and time as a traditional means. Arbitration, collaborative law, mediation and negotiation are a few of the alternative means to resolve disputes. For the majority of the ADR process, there is no need for a judge or jury. Initially, an ADR method should be chosen, with a neutral individual in charge of facilitation. For the benefit of avoiding a public trial, a
Traditional and Nontraditional Litigation Paper Week One
Name
Law/531
Date
Instructor
For many years, litigation has been the one thing in reference to the law that traditionally resolves lawsuits and disputes. There are many facts that need to be considered when one compares or contrasts traditional litigation methods to the nontraditional litigation methods (Alternate Dispute Resolution). Handled outside of litigation in court, ADR is a unique resolution. ADR’s types include “arbitration, collaborative law, mediation and negotiation. Conciliation is sometimes included as a fifth category” (Alternate Dispute Resolution Law, 2011).
The traditional system has multiple means of solving a case, in comparison to non-traditional ADR approaches. Traditional litigation involves public exposure that involves an individual or a company. Due to the fact that the case has public exposure, the company’s image could be negatively affected. The plaintiff of a case needs to have contains burden of verification, when using traditional litigation. It is implied that time and effort is needed to collect proof by way of evidence, witnesses and any other factors that may be used to sway a judge or jury. Any case requires costs in relation to time and effort. Mitigating factors such as the discovery process uncovers both parties’ advantages and disadvantages.
The benefit of ADR, allows a legal issue to be resolved without having to spend as much money and time as a traditional means. Arbitration, collaborative law, mediation and negotiation are a few of the alternative means to resolve disputes. For the majority of the ADR process, there is no need for a judge or jury. Initially, an ADR method should be chosen, with a neutral individual in charge of facilitation. For the benefit of avoiding a public trial, a
References: Alternate Dispute Resolution Law (2011). Retrieved on September 11, 2012 from http://www.hg.org/adr.html Cheeseman, H. R. (2010). Business law: Legal environment, online commerce, business ethics, and international issues (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.