Essay about Traditional and Nontraditional Litigation

1318 Words May 16th, 2013 6 Pages
Traditional and Nontraditional Litigation

Susan Maynard

LAW/531

May 5, 2013

Bob Houle

Traditional and Nontraditional Litigation The traditional litigation system and the nontraditional forms of the alternative dispute resolutions (ADR) have several similarities as well as differences. There are numerous legal processes available to companies to resolve disputes other than using the traditional litigation system such as arbitration, negotiation, mediation, conciliation, mini-trial, fact-finding, and a judicial referee. Even though there are differences between the traditional litigation system and the nontraditional forms of ADR there is situations that call
…show more content…
1). Losing is always a risk when using traditional litigation. Other risks are loss of trading secrets or proprietary information, and a bad reputation for the organization.
Nontraditional Litigation of ADR According to Barron, (2013) “Because the expense and time-consuming nature of litigation, many parties elect to settle disputes by using ADR techniques such as arbitration and mediation” (para. 4). Other methods of ADR are negotiation, conciliation, mini-trial, fact-finding, and using a judicial referee.
Arbitration

Arbitration is commonly used by most businesses. With arbitration the parties involved selects an impartial third party to listen to both sides and determines an award to the dispute. The rules of arbitration are similar to the discovery process of traditional litigation. According to Cheeseman, (2010) “At the arbitration, the parties can call witnesses to give testimony, introduce evidence to support their case, and refute the other side’s case” (p. 45). Binding arbitration is when both parties agree prior to the procedure to bind the resolution and award made by the arbitrator that cannot be appealed by the court.
Mediation

According to Barron, (2013) “Mediation is a process where the mediator uses conflict-resolution skills, and actively encourages the parties to reach a compromise or mutually satisfactory settlement without recourse to the court system” (para. 5).