Traditional and Nontraditional Litigation Basically, Alternative Dispute

Traditional and Nontraditional Litigation

Basically, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is taken as a way of resolving conflict in a confidential though informal way. Litigation on the other hand can be described as a process where a lawsuit is maintained and defended. Nontraditional forms of ADR avail alternatives to the traditional litigation system. In this text, I will concern myself with the main differences as well as similarities between the nontraditional forms of ADR and the traditional litigation system.

Traditional Litigation and Nontraditional forms of ADR

Differences

According to Beatty and Samuelson (2009), nontraditional forms of ADR are cheaper than the traditional litigation system. This essentially means that in terms of costs, the traditional litigation system comes across as being more expensive. While the costs associated with nontraditional forms of ADR are limited to arbitrator fees and the fees of the attorney, the traditional litigation system could in addition to attorney fees also include court costs which may end up being relatively high. It can also be noted that while the traditional litigation system can be said to be a formal process which in most cases is open to public scrutiny, nontraditional forms of ADR are primarily informal and largely private. Hart, Blanchard and Hart (2006) also note that the results of nontraditional forms of ADR are largely unpredictable. This is in comparison to those of the traditional litigation system.

Next, in terms of speed, nontraditional forms of ADR appear to be faster (Beatty and Samuelson, 2009). In fact, the case can be heard as soon as an arbitrator is decided on. On the other hand, the traditional litigation system tends to be fairly slow as the case has to be allocated time for hearing. Given that in most cases courts have before them numerous cases to be heard and determined, the process in this instance could consume more time. This makes the traditional litigation system slower than the nontraditional forms of ADR.

Further, it can be noted that the nontraditional forms of ADR allow for the selection of an arbitrator by the parties involved in the process. This is largely not the case when it comes to the traditional litigation system where parties have no say as far as the selection of the arbitrator or judge is concerned. It can also be noted that when it comes to the nontraditional forms of ADR, the rules of evidence do not apply. This is in contrast to the traditional litigation system where rules of evidence do apply. This effectively means that in the former, we have neither the discovery process nor issuance of subpoenas.

Similarities

When it comes to the similarities between nontraditional forms of ADR and the traditional litigation system, it can be noted that both processes are concerned with the resolution of legal disputes. Further, both processes largely utilize the rules and procedures of law albeit in varying degrees. Next, both processes have gained widespread usage in dispute resolution. In this case, though nontraditional forms of ADR are relatively new in terms of their usage over time when compared to the traditional litigation system which has been in place for quite a while, both approaches have proven to be quite effective as far as dispute resolution is concerned. Another key similarity between the traditional litigation system and nontraditional forms of ADR is that both processes utilize an independent party to resolve as well as settle disputes (Redfern, 2004).