Traditional and Non-Traditional Litigation

Traditional and Nontraditional Litigation Paper

Gregory J. Minor

LAW/531

DECEMBER 19, 2011

Traditional and Nontraditional Litigation Paper .

In this paper we, will compare and contrast the differences between traditional litigation and non-traditional litigation, we will explain the pros and cons of both options, we will also discussed different cases they that may go through both proceedings

Traditional litigation uses the court system to resolve disputes. In this system attorneys are bound by the law in representing clients. This method of resolution is more costly and time consuming with more detailed rules and is far more formal. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is occurs when both parties agree to find a resolution without going to court. This form of dispute resolution is less costly in time and money.

Negotiation, mediation, conciliation, and arbitration, are the forms of ADR. When choosing ADR over traditional litigation, attorneys and clients, are aware that a third party will assist in the resolution. The third person can be a mediator or a conciliator., aA mediator who will act as a go between for both parties until an agreement is reached. A conciliator is actively a part of the decisions reached. When a dispute is settled through arbitration the third party is the person who will make the final judgment, if the issue is resolved .

. Decisions made using these methods of ADR are legally binding and entered with the courts .

Publicity, no attorney wants that unless it works in their clients favor, but there is no way to know that until the conclusion. Unlike in the traditional legal system, where, depending on the type of case publicity is a given, whereas, ADR can go virtually unnoticed even after a decision is made in the case.

Power in most traditional cases the each party is represented and power based on the strength of the evidence presented, whereas power may be enjoyed by one side in ADR . This is usually reflected in personal disputes such as divorce and insurance claims. One side may be more able to dominate the other party more so in ADR than in and traditional litigation setting there are more rules that have to be abided by both parties, where in ADR, there are rules, but is a more relaxed setting than a courtroom.

When filing complaints in the traditional and ADR the plaintiff is to file first then the court determines if the evidence provided is enough to warrant to move forward in ADR the same applies, but is an arbitrator instead of the courts hearing the evidence. Making a decision based on what is presented .

Personal experience we were involved in a lawsuit, which we went through ADR, the arbitrators were allowed to question me, and evidence was