Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Alternative dispute resolution, otherwise known as external dispute resolution (EDR), is a way to resolve conflicts, claims, or disputes without going through a train in a courtroom. As an alternative, parties who disagree can use ADR processes and have a neutral third party help them settle their issues. However, only non-criminal cases can be settled through ADR.

The court’s encouragement and the proper alternative dispute resolution training have led to its wide acceptance in the legal fraternity and the public in general. It not only helps parties settle disputes more amicably but also significantly reduces the court’s caseload. A few of the most common methods of ADR are conciliation, arbitration, negotiation, and mediation.

Alternative dispute resolution, or ADR, is a proxy or substitute for conventional ways of finding justice for non-criminal disputes. It is an efficient way to resolve issues outside the court. It not only makes it easier for the parties involved but also reduces the workload in terms of cases for the court as well. 

An alternative dispute resolution form is filled out when both parties have tried to resolve the dispute, claim, or issue among themselves but to no avail. Therefore, when the parties disputing against each other agree to settle the issue through ADR methods voluntarily, the process commences. 

However, a contract clause, court order, or both can also impose or direct the commencement of ADR proceedings. With the help of legal counsel, the parties choose an appropriate ADR method.

Civil (non-criminal) cases are typically expensive and time-consuming. However, adopting the ADR route helps parties settle disputes in a pocket-friendly manner and within a reasonable period. 

However, there are a few common criticisms of the ADR system. It does not consistently deliver what it promises. Moreover, in some complicated cases, the process may take as long and be as costly as a conventional route of legal dispute settlement. 

There are a few characteristics that set alternative resolution groups apart from the orthodox route of legal resolution. A few of the most prominent ones are:

• They are far more informal than regular judicial processes. The rules in ADR processes are slightly more flexible. 
• The lack of formal hearings and extensive written documentation also play vital roles in reducing costs and time consumed.
• ADR processes are designed to apply equity among parties rather than the rule of law. 
• Each case is heard and decided upon by a third party or between the disputants themselves. Therefore, the terms and principles applied are particular to the case rather than the general or uniform rule of law. 
• However, ADRs pay attention to the laws pertaining to the issue. The laws surrounding the issue are always considered in order to provide a structure of redressal or resolution.
• The disputants are more actively involved in ADR processes and curating settlements. 
• There is an elevated level of secrecy as the dialogue, settlement, and other details are not recorded extensively. 

Different cases require different methods to settle amicably. An efficient alternative dispute resolution training must include the following popular methods of ADR.

• Mediation: It is when an independent third party is onboarded to find common ground for the disputants to agree and settle upon mutually. The mediator’s role is not to determine who is right or wrong but to give the dispute resolution a decisive structure to the communication in the process.
• Negotiation: Whenever there is direct contact between two parties in a dispute, negotiation can take place. For both parties to agree on the same terms, they engage in an exchange of interests, prospective solutions, and views to conclude. The negotiation process can be between the disputants themselves or with their respective legal counsel.
• Arbitration: A neutral/external third party is appointed to hear arguments and points from both parties, collect evidence, and decide the outcome of the dispute, much like court proceedings. The arbitrator’s outcome declaration may or may not be enforceable, depending on whether both parties agree to the terms provided.
• Mini Trial: Each party or their representatives present their case to an appointed impartial third party. The presentation is considered part of the negotiation process. The third party directs the case toward a standard resolution. Even though it sounds like regular court proceedings, a mini-trial is conducted in a significantly more private setting. 

The theoretical aspects of alternative dispute resolution forms are well-established. Now, it is time to explore the concept's practical applicability through the examples below.

Example #1

Alex and Mitchell are siblings and recently lost their father to cancer. Their father had not drafted a will, and hence, their mother decided to split the inheritance 60-40 in favor of Mitchell as he was in a situation where he could use the money more than his brother. 

However, Alex found this arrangement appalling and unfair. He decided to negotiate with his legal representative present. As a result, they ultimately settled upon a 55-45 settlement. 

Example #2

Just before the trial for gender discrimination was scheduled to begin in early 2024, Goldman Sachs decided to take the ADR route and settle the case without going through trial. The evidence gathered included about 3,000 female VPs and associates who reported being disadvantaged by the company’s discriminatory evaluation system since 2002. 

As a result, the investment bank proposed a $215 million settlement, for which Judge Analisa Torres signed the final approval. 

Like most concepts and practices, the alternative dispute resolution group has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Below are a few of the most prominent ones from both ends of the spectrum. 

Advantages

• One of the fundamental advantages of ADR is that it is incredibly cost-effective in comparison to orthodox legal proceedings. 
• The time taken for the ADR process to commence and conclude is significantly shorter than the traditional route to justice. 
• The rules in ADR proceedings are typically flexible. For instance, disputants can choose the ADR method that they deem fit to settle a dispute. 
• Compared to other forms of justice, ADRs are less documented and conducted away from the public eye. Therefore, it is perfect for cases where sensitive information is involved. 
• Since the parties involved are in control of the outcome of ADR proceedings, this can lead to more sustainable and satisfactory resolutions.

Disadvantages

• The foundation of finding justice is in the presence of precedent. However, ADRs do not have the characteristics to set a legal precedent. Therefore, there needs to be more certainty.
• While judgments from a court are enforceable, ADR judgments are significantly more challenging to enforce.
• In a few methods of ADR, especially arbitration, the scope of appealing a decision made can be challenging. 
• If one party has significantly more power than the other, they can easily influence the outcome of the process, which might be more challenging with formal proceedings.
• Since there are no set rules or formal structure, the justice delivered through these processes might be inconsistent.