Both have many benefits and both have drawbacks, however it is the civil dispute that should determine which is the most beneficial. Traditional Litigation Traditional litigation is a legal method for settling disputes between parties such as: people, organizations, and the State. During the process of litigation a case, also known as a lawsuit, is carried before a court of law that has jurisdiction over the case. The feuding parties present their sides to receive a judgment (BusinessDictionary. com, 2012. ) Traditional litigation is a slower process than ADR, but it is also a more formal process.
The litigation process is more expensive. Lawyers are very costly and then there are court fees and various fees involved during research and general time consumption (Harms, 2011. ) However, it is heard before a judge and results in a formal judgment. A formal judgment means that the decision is enforceable through the court system. ADR by its very informality leaves the decision free to disregard case precedence which leaves the outcome unpredictable (Cheeseman, 2010. ) Traditional litigation is somewhat more predictable through following procedure and being able to appeal.
Traditional litigation allows the parties to obtain documents, enter testimony, and gather evidence from the other party even if the other party is unwilling (Harms, 2011. ) There are many reasons to choose traditional litigation over ADR. If the civil dispute involves major monetary payouts, has the ability to negatively affect an organization to the point of disbandment, or is already heated in such a way as to hinder any civil interactions between the parties, traditional litigation would seem the more appropriate method to resolve the dispute. ADR “Almost 90% of all cases resolved through some form of ADR before trial (Harms, 2011. ” alternative dispute resolution or ADR typically involves three aspects: Arbitration, Mediation, and Negotiation. Arbitration means the two sides of the civil dispute refer to a third parties decision. Mediation is the where the two sides are aided by a third person in order to reach a decision. Negotiation is where the two sides meet and exchange ideas in order compromise on a decision. ADR is more confidential than traditional litigation, and is often a more cost-efficient alternative. Whereas, traditional litigation can be extremely costly and time consuming, often resulting in public disclosure.
The Essay on Dispute Resolution Parties
... dispute. Negotiation is where the two parties negotiate to settle the dispute. A mini-trial is a shortened version of a traditional litigation ... the alternative dispute resolution parties can select a neutral decision maker with specific expertise pertaining to the dispute. The ... American Management Association (AMA). (2011). What is ADR? Retrieved from http://wwwocc. treas. gov Cheeseman, H. R. ...
The ADR process allows both sides to work within a neutral environment and find an agreeable solution while maintain a relationship, whereas traditional litigation can result in a hostile environment where a solution can result in having a negative effect on. ADR ultimately results in an opinion which is usually filed with a court and turned into a judgment (Harms, 2011. ) In cases where alternative dispute resolution or ADR can be used, it should be. It cuts back on the courts dockets, save money and time, and allows both parties the most ability to maintain civil relations.
If both parties are able to sit down and present their sides in a civil manner, ADR is the better choice. Conclusion Overall, traditional litigation and alternative dispute resolution are both effective means of resolving civil disputes. They both have many benefits that can be great advantages to both parties, while allowing both parties to resolve their issue. However, it depends very much on the dispute as to whether or not traditional litigation or ADR should be used. The parties need to decide if they can remain civil, if they need a formal process, and which method is more conducive to their dispute.
The Essay on Elections, Political Parties, and Civil Society in Authoritarian Regimes
Within many Authoritarian Regimes, the conditions are very similar and the political participation becomes severely limited. The following essay will attempt to briefly capture a few key characteristics of two countries in terms of elections, political parties, and the role of civil societies within the state. The two countries that I will be discussing are Iran and China. First of all, after ...
