Non Traditional and Traditional Litigation

Non Traditional and Traditional Litigation Being human, disputes often arise between individuals and organizations. In many organizations, there are already a number of policies and procedures that outline most of the ways people need to act toward one another depending on their role (e.g. supervisory vs. employee, co-worker, etc.). However, since individuals differ in their ways of dealing with issues, reacting to one another, and in particularly in highly stressful situations there are times when formal policies are simply not enough to adequately handle each individual situation.

When situations occur that are not solved adequately by policies and procedures, a dispute needs to be settled. This can be done essentially in one of two formal ways, assuming all other potential solutions have been exhausted: court-based adjusdication and ADR (alternative dispute resolution) (Schroeder, 2011). Traditional litigation is a formal process with rules established by the various levels of government under the U.S. Constitution. Litigation is a legal procedure that is decided in a court of law and heard before a Judge, and sometimes a Jury.

Litigation is adversarial, it is a battle between lawyers and strategies, and although the Judge is there to consider points of law and keep order, it is not necessarily the means to finding the truth of the matter. For example, one Criminal Court Judge in New York remarked, "I have nothing to do with justice…. Justice is not even part of the equation" (the Adversarial Legal System, 2010).

Through the Court system, though, as long as the dispute is translated into legal issues, it can be decided in a court of law. This system allows the ceasing of certain actions, interpretation of documents (contracts, etc.), sue for money or property, or any number of issues. Litigation is more often than not quite expensive, sometimes so much so that many individuals cannot even afford to take their case to court. The process is lengthy due to crowded dockets, which sometimes only perpetuates the problems.

It does, though usually end in a decision that is binding and legally enforceable. It is appealable and has safeguards, and the rulings are based on precedent (Cheesman, 2010). Both of these groupings are often based on the attitude of the parties in question. Mediation of a dispute typically involves using a neutral third party to act in the role of a guide, a negotiator, or someone who might she differing viewpoints upon a situation.

They may or may not be a member of the legal profession, but are required to hear both sides of the dispute, then meet with the parties, and focus on a mutually beneficial solution to the issue. Mediation is less formal than arbitration, and tries to ensure that parties "really want a solution" to the issues and will work to find said solution. Arbitration, however, usually requires a judge or attorney, and is similar to a court proceeding.

Often, both sides must agree to the decision by the arbitrator to be binding, and typically, arbitration avoids lengthy trial proceedings. In arbitration, both sides state their position, witnesses may be called, and the arbitrator can probe both sides as appropriate (McLean and Williamson, 2008; Raynor). For a win-win situation to occur, open and honest communication and finding common ground seems the best alternative. Litigation can be costly, time-consuming and ultimately dissatisfying.

Since both parties have a lot to lose monetarily, productively, and in personal relationships, alternative means might be the best route. ADR is a series of ways to settle disputes other than using the adversarial court system. Some.