More handpicked essays just for you.
Advantages and importance of Alternative Dispute Resolution
Advantages and importance of Alternative Dispute Resolution
Advantages and importance of Alternative Dispute Resolution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Alternate Dispute Resolution
Alternate Dispute Resolution has many benefits serving as a legal substitute for resolving civil disputes. Most courts prefer the proceedings of an ADR as appose to Litigation. In some counties the option of ADR must be analyzed before attempting to initiate the proceedings of litigation. Most district courts along with appeal courts will oversee the negotiations of an ADR. In some circumstances ADRs do not settle well and in those instances the involvement of the courts will resolve the remaining disputes. Alternate Dispute Resolution is a large part of our legal system, which many citizens rely on to settle civil disputes. ADR has been a part of US legal history since the times of the colonies.
Alternate Dispute Resolution, better known as (ADR) in the legal field, was first used in the late 1800’s. ADR was initially used, not to replace judicial proceedings, but to work as a tool of resolve for matters like to civil struggle between laborers and management. ADR has various identifiable titles like mediation, negotiation and settlement. Congress authorized the process of ADR’s once becoming aware of independent civil bargaining in states like New York and Massachusetts. Following, official mediation agencies emerged. For example, the Board of Mediation and the National Mediation Board were two of the first ADRs to arise in the early 1900’s (Delaware, 2008). Around the same time, in 1913, the Newlands Act was passed in agreement of protecting the interest of voluntary negotiations. During the American Bar Association in 1932, lawyers were able to convince the courts to release qualifying cases to the process of mediation and collective bargaining. Lawyers argued that out-of-court negotiations would spare the time and cost of courts and parties alike. The courts agreed with the notion and soon followed. Later, throughout the civil rights movements of the 1960’s and 1970’s, Congress established the CRS, also known as, the Community Relations Service. Once the US Department of Justice founded this administration service, civilians in school, prisons and other civil matters could reap the benefits of conciliation.
The Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara Alternative Dispute Resolution Information Sheet/Civil Division states, “ADR is the general term for a wide variety of dispute resolution processes that are alternative to litigation” (Santa Clara, 2002). The purpose of ADR is to save time and money, reduces stress, and provides more control, flexibility and participation in a legal matter.
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services. (2013, November 29). In Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services, Collective Bargaining. Retrieved 11:08, November 29, 2013 from
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and traditional litigation are different types of ways to resolve legal matters. Traditional litigation can prove very costly and often times drawn out for lengthy periods. ADR affords companies the opportunity to resolve a legal matter in a reasonable amount of time and at times without the exorbitant cost of a trail. The case detailed in this paper is Kovalchick v. South Baldwin Hospital, which used traditional litigation, but reversed on appeal the hospital may want to examine the benefits of ADR.
This report is set to outline and highlight key developments in a very important piece of law “Federal Arbitration Act” which is also commonly known as FAA. In order to look at the FAA in detail which was developed in late 1925, first let’s see what the word Arbitration mean. In simple words, Arbitration is known be to a very informal, private and isolated process in which all participating parties agree to hand in their disputes and problems in writing to one or more independent parties who are sanctioned to resolve the problem or issue. If someone ask you a question to define the act of Arbitration or what does it mean, most of us will have one of the following opinion:
Journal of Dispute Resolution, 401-427.
When the changes were put in place it established a full time board that was required to settle disputes upon mediation. Arbitration was available if mediation did not work.
Ott, Marvin C. "Mediation as a Method of Conflict Resolution: Two Cases." International Organization 26.04 (1972): 595-618. JSTOR. Web. 3 Dec. 2013.
As disputes are inevitable in any society, it is important for people to always improve the solutions to disputes. Usually, when a dispute becomes severe and unsolvable simply by negotiation, two parties will go to court for better solutions. In Canada, we have 2 systems that run parallel: administrative tribunal and the court system. However, administrative tribunals are not part of the court system; instead they are independent government agencies which are established under legislation (either federal or provincial) to implement legislative policy. Unlike court where the judge makes decision based on common law, administrative tribunals are less formal.
A group can only be called a team if the members are actively working together toward a common goal. A team must have the capability to set goals, make decisions, solve problems, and share responsibilities. For a team to be successful, trust must be earned between its members by being consistent and reliable (Temme & Katzel, 2005). When more than one person is working on a particular task, inconsistent views or opinions commonly arise. People come from different backgrounds and live through different life experiences therefore, even when working towards a common goal, they will not always see eye to eye. Major conflict that is not dealt with can devastate a team or organization (Make Conflict Work, 2008). In some situations, conflict can be more constructive than destructive. Recognizing the difference between conflict that is constructive to the team and conflict that is destructive to the team is important. Trying to prevent the conflict is not always the best way to manage conflict when working within a team setting. Understanding conflict, what causes it, and how to resolve conflict effectively, should consume full concentration.
Many people enjoy working or participating in a group or team, but when a group of people work together chances are that conflicts will occur. Hazleton describes conflict as the discrepancy between what is the perceived reality and what is seen as ideal (2007). “We enter into conflicts reluctantly, cautiously, angrily, nervously, confidently- and emerge from them battered, exhausted, sad, satisfied, triumphant. And still many of us underestimate or overlook the merits of conflict- the opportunity conflict offers every time it occurs” (Schilling, nd.). Conflict does not have to lead to a hostile environment or to broken relationships. Conflict if resolved effectively can lead to a positive experience for everyone involved. First, there must be an understanding of the reasons why conflicts occur. The conflict must be approached with an open mind. Using specific strategies can lead to a successful resolution for all parties involved. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument states “there are five general approaches to dealing with conflict. The five approaches are avoidance, accommodation, competition, compromise, and collaboration. Conflict resolution is situational and no one approach provides the best or right approach for all circumstances” (Thomas, 2000).
Alternative Dispute Resolution or ADR refers to a number of various processes that can be used to resolve legal disputes other than by litigation. Recently, methods of dispute resolution which focus on arbitration, mediation and negotiation as an alternative to adjudication have gained notoriety. This notoriety may have been caused by the public perception that ADR methods are less expensive, more efficient, and more satisfactory than the normal traditional course of litigation. The goals of establishing these processes to resolve disputes as an alternative to more formal legal processes include: 1) to make the regular court system more efficient, less costly and more responsive to the needs of the litigants; 2) to offer alternative methods of dispute resolution in addition to the regular court system; and 3) to provide public education about the available alternatives.
workplace include greater total resources, greater knowledge band and a greater source of ideas. However, these advantages can also bring on conflict within teams and the entire workplace. Varney (1989) reported that conflict remained the number one problem within a large company. This was after several attempts were made to train management in conflict resolutions and procedures. However, the conflict remained. The conflict possibly remains because the managers and leaders did not pay attention to the seriousness of the issue. In order to maintain an effective team, leaders and team members must know and be proactive in the conflict resolution techniques and procedures.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative Dispute Resolution. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) involves dispute resolution processes and techniques that fall outside of the government judicial process. There has been moves against ADR in the past by entities of many political parties and their associates, despite this, ADR has gained inclusive acceptance among both the broad community and the legal profession in past years. In fact, many courts now entail parties to remedy to ADR of some type, usually mediation, before allowing the parties' cases to be tried. The increasing attractiveness of ADR can be clarified by the increasing caseload of traditional courts, the perception that ADR imposes fewer costs than litigation, a preference for confidentiality, and the desire of some parties to obtain larger control over the selection of the individual or individuals who will decide their dispute.
Both forms of ADR have several common characteristics. However, one must consider that a neutral side in both procedures fulfils distinct from one another duties. Mediators do not have the objective to make decision, whereas arbitrators determine an outcome of the case. Upon the termination of the procedure, an arbiter renders a binding award that cannot be later avoided by disputants. During mediation, parties are not contingent upon the third side and enjoy freedom of actions needed for dispute resolution. In contrast, in case of failure to reach an agreement, parties are not legally bound for actions afterwards. By considering the true qualities of arbitration and mediation taken individually, legislation and scientists suggest that in single arbitration, arbitrators may use mediators’ functions to promote amicable settlement and functions of both arbitrators and mediators have incongruous
Mediation is a form of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Mediation is a process which it assists disputed parties to arrive to a mutually agreed resolution without going to court. As the out of court problem solving approach, mediation is a more convenient way for parties which trying to avoid the hassle and loving some flexibility from the more rigid court procedure. Mediation can be said as an informal process of which parties during this process is encouraged to work together among the disputed parties in good faith in order to solve their problems and disputes at a lower financial cost and it consume lesser time as opposed to the court procedure. Mediation recently has become more common as one of dispute resolution process especially for disputes which have relations to divorce matter, child custody or even for child visitation especially for its privacy and confidentiality.
It is argued that the key factor in ADR application is that all it’s’ method are designed to assist the disputing parties resolve their differences in a manner that is creative and most suited to the particular dispute. Yet these achievements are not sweeping enough to conclude that the adversarial procedures are irrelevant. Though some people see ADR methods as supplanting the adversarial system, but these thoughts could only hold water where the courts in many jurisdictions are unable to resolve all disputes in a manner appealing to litigants, but until then ADR methods will be designated as collaborative dispute resolution system with the conventional litigation system.