Alternative dispute resolution (ADR)

In this situation, a third party known as the mediator works with the parties to attempt and find a mutually agreeable way to resolve their differences.

The mediator’s job is to help the parties communicate; they are not expected to make the ultimate decision on their behalf.

This is a situation in which a neutral person known as an arbitrator listens to the arguments and looks into the evidences presented by each of the parties to the case and then makes a decision on the dispute.

The process is viewed to be less formal in comparison to a court trial (Partridge, 2009).

It can be binding in which that parties involved can waive their rights to the trial and accept the outcome presented by the arbitrator or it can be nonbinding in which the parties can call for a trial if they are in disagreement with the decision of the arbitrator.

Neutral Evaluation

In this case, each of the parties is given an opportunity to present their case to an impartial individual known as the evaluator.

He/she then offers a view based on the strengths and weaknesses of the evidences presented by the parties.

Settlement conference

In this case, the parties involved in a disputes agrees to meet with a judge or a neutral person known as a settlement officer so as to discuss possible means of settling the dispute.

Advantages

ADR procedures are generally regarded as being collaborative thus allowing the parties involved to understand one another’s positions appropriately.

The parties are thus able to initiate creative forms of solving issues that may the legal court system may not be in allowed to use.

References

Atlas, N. F., Huber, S. K., & Trachte-Huber, E. W. (2000). Alternative dispute resolution. Chicago, Ill: Section of Litigation, ABA.

Partridge, M. V. B. (2009). Alternative dispute resolution: An essential competency for lawyers. Oxford [England: Oxford University Press.