Why Do Courts Need Mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution

Time and money are two of the most valuable assets to mankind. For centuries success has been measured by some aspect of time and money. In our daily exchanges in trying to conserve or acquire these assets, disputes arise that can result in legal act. Courts nationwide deal with millions of cases a year. Court cases are can take years and thousands of dollars before resolutions are meet. Due to this consumption of our most valued assets people seek alternative resolutions that have been proven to effectively and efficiently resolve disputes. Courts should require alternative dispute resolution during the pretrial period because it can save time and money.
Mandatory alternative dispute resolution saves time because it combines the pretrial and the trial process into one efficient procedure. The pretrial process involves four major phases of pleading, discovery, pretrial motions, and settlement conference. Each of these phases require
varying amount of time to ensure that each individual involved in the suit completes each aspect lawfully. Some of the phases involve multiple steps before they are completed and the parties can proceed to the subsequent phase. For instance, the very first stage within the pleading phase of the pretrial process can take a month or more to complete; because the plaintiff must have a complaint and summons prepared and filed to commence the process. Once this has occurred the defendant usually has about three weeks to answer the plaintiff’s complaint. In considering the time it takes to complete the first stage, it is easy to see how the entire process can continue for years before a resolution.
In addition to time, money can be saved through alternative resolution. Lawyers have always been known to charge exorbitant legal fees and with the passage of time they have held firm to their reputation. Usually an individual will require the services of a lawyer when involved in a legal dispute; whether it is to draw up legal documents or obtain advice. Within each phase of the pretrial process an individual will encounter these needs. Considering that the process can drag on for years, the cost each phase can require can add up to thousands before the situation concludes. In addition, the losing party will have the additional cost of the decided payment.
Alternative dispute resolutions have two primary forms, arbitration and mediation.
The form courts should require is mediation because it is more efficient and effective than arbitration. When issues arise it is usually because each party knows what they want, however they cannot come to a consensus. Mediation is the best tool to resolve the issue because instead of having to settle for an decision or award selected by an arbitrator, the mediator can help the parties create a middle ground that incorporates what both parties may want. Arbitration is very similar to the court proceedings. Due to the fact the arbitration does not always result in a faster resolution, which is possibly due to the court similarities, parties can end up undergoing a court experience. This can result in a less efficient alternative. Whereas mediation does not reflect that of a court experience, which can lead to a more efficient alternative. Therefore, if parties are seeking alternatives to the court trial then it should be different from the court
trial.
In conclusion mediation should be required as the alternative dispute resolution process before a plaintiff is allowed to proceed to trial. If less parties occupy the court rooms with issues that can be resolved out of court, more time and money can be saved for the parties and the courts. This can result in a more efficient legal system because the court will have the time and resources to deal with more complex cases.