Dispute Resoloution And Its Growing Role In U.S. Business

Conflict is unavoidable. In the world in which we live, competition is a driving force that creates and destroys markets, allows businesses to flourish, and others to fall by the wayside, and grants consumers the ability to decide which entities in business will survive, and which will burn out, as their natural life cycle draws to a close. With competition being such a large part of what fuels the fire, progressing our modern business world; companies are bound to have disputes needing resolution. In the past, litigation was the only method in which companies were able to solve disputes. The process is a long and strenuous one to say the least, involving teams of lawyers, judges, panels of jurors, witnesses, and various relevant experts, all to come to a conclusion on a single dispute. This form of conflict resolution is one that pits the involved parties against each other as opponents, declaring a winner, and loser in each argument, often times, increasing the level of hostility between the involved parties. This is also an extremely demanding form of resolution from various standpoints, to various parties. Litigation imposes a significant financial burden, as well as an unreasonable time burden on not only the parties involved, but the government agency that is forced to hear these proceedings. Often times, a case can reach a verdict in which the debate is solved, yet the underlying issue causing the problem remains unaddressed, allowing for issues to continue to arise, and tie up further time and resources of the court, and the parties involved. Another problem faced by these types of hearings is the lack of consistency. A trial can be heard by two separate panels of jurors, and reach two opposite verdicts, all based on who the evidence was presented to. In a recent survey of judges in civil court proceedings, the judges were asked if they would have made the same ruling as the panel of jurors did. Despite the fact that the judges had heard the same testimony as the jurors, in fifty percent of the cases the judges said they would have made a different ruling (McCallum Jr.). All of these factors combined are indicative to the fact that it is time for a new form of dispute resolution. This change has brought about several new forms of ADR (Alternate Dispute Resolution) that people are becoming increasingly comfortable using, and more and more willing to agree upon.