Alternative Dispute Resolution

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) typically refers to processes and techniques of

resolving disputes that fall outside of the judicial process (formal litigation – court).
Some courts now require some parties to utilize ADR of some type, usually
mediation, before permitting the parties' cases to be tried. ADR is generally
classified into at least four subtypes: negotiation, mediation, collaborative law, and
arbitration. Sometimes a fifth type, conciliation, is included as well.

One common element in most of the ADR procedures (with the exception of
negotiation) is the presence of a person who acts either as the facilitator or decision
maker. This facilitator is usually a neutral person who is capable of providing an
unbiased opinion. Although, in collaborative law or collaborative divorce, each party
has an attorney who facilitates the resolution process within specifically contracted
terms.

ADR is useful in a wide range of conflicts, such as commercial disputes, professional

liability cases, personal injury matters, insurance problems and family and divorce
matters.

What Are the ADR Options?

The most commonly used ADR processes are mediation, arbitration, neutral
evaluation, and settlement conferences.

1. Mediation
In mediation, an impartial person called a “mediator” helps the parties try to reach
a mutually acceptable resolution of the dispute. The mediator does not decide the
dispute but helps the parties communicate so they can try to settle the dispute
themselves. Mediation leaves control of the outcome with the parties.

Cases for Which Mediation May Be Appropriate: Mediation may be particularly

useful when parties have a relationship they want to preserve. So when family
members, neighbors, or business partners have a dispute, mediation may be the
ADR process to use.

Mediation is also effective when emotions are getting in the way of resolution. An
effective mediator can hear the parties out and help them communicate with each
other in an effective and nondestructive manner.
Cases for Which Mediation May Not Be Appropriate: Mediation may not be
effective if one of the parties is unwilling to cooperate or compromise. Mediation
also may not be effective if one of the parties has a significant advantage in power
over the other. Therefore, it may not be a good choice if the parties have a history
of abuse or victimization.

2. Arbitration
In arbitration, a neutral person called an “arbitrator” hears arguments and evidence
from each side and then decides the outcome of the dispute. Arbitration is less
formal than a trial, and the rules of evidence are often relaxed.

Arbitration may be either “binding” or “nonbinding.” Binding arbitration means that

the parties waive their right to a trial and agree to accept the arbitrator’s decision
as final. Generally, there is no right to appeal an arbitrator’s decision. Nonbinding
arbitration means that the parties are free to request a trial if they do not accept
the arbitrator’s decision.

Cases for Which Arbitration May Be Appropriate: Arbitration is best for cases
where the parties want another person to decide the outcome of their dispute for
them but would like to avoid the formality, time, and expense of a trial. It may also
be appropriate for complex matters where the parties want a decision-maker who
has training or experience in the subject matter of the dispute.

Cases for Which Arbitration May Not Be Appropriate: If parties want to retain
control over how their dispute is resolved, arbitration, particularly binding
arbitration, is not appropriate. In binding arbitration, the parties generally cannot
appeal the arbitrator’s award, even if it is not supported by the evidence or the law.
Even in nonbinding arbitration, if a party requests a trial and does not receive a
more favorable result at trial than in arbitration, there may be penalties.

3. Neutral Evaluation
In neutral evaluation, each party gets a chance to present the case to a neutral
person called an “evaluator.” The evaluator then gives an opinion on the strengths
and weaknesses of each party’s evidence and arguments and about how the
dispute could be resolved. The evaluator is often an expert in the subject matter of
the dispute. Although the evaluator’s opinion is not binding, the parties typically
use it as a basis for trying to negotiate a resolution of the dispute.

Cases for Which Neutral Evaluation May Be Appropriate: Neutral evaluation

may be most appropriate in cases in which there are technical issues that require
special expertise to resolve or the only significant issue in the case is the amount of
damages.
Cases for Which Neutral Evaluation May Not Be Appropriate :Neutral
evaluation may not be appropriate when there are significant personal or emotional
barriers to resolving the dispute.

4. Settlement Conference
Settlement conferences may be either mandatory or voluntary. In both types of
settlement conferences, the parties and their attorneys meet with a judge or a
neutral person called a “settlement officer” to discuss possible settlement of their
dispute. The judge or settlement officer does not make a decision in the case but
assists the parties in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the case and in
negotiating a settlement. Settlement conferences are appropriate in any case
where settlement is an option. Mandatory settlement conferences are often held
close to the date a case is set for trial.

5.Collaborative law
In collaborative law or collaborative divorce, each party has an attorney who
facilitates the resolution process within specifically contracted terms. The parties
reach agreement with support of the attorneys (who are trained in the process) and
mutually-agreed experts. No one imposes a resolution on the parties. However, the
process is a formalized process that is part of the litigation and court system.
Rather than being an Alternative Resolution methodology it is a litigation variant
that happens to rely on ADR like attitudes and processes.

6.Negotiation
In negotiation, participation is voluntary and there is no third party who facilitates
the resolution process or imposes a resolution.

Advantages of ADR
ADR has gained widespread acceptance among both the general public and the
legal profession in recent years. In fact, some courts now require some parties to
resort to ADR of some type, usually mediation, before permitting the parties' cases
to be tried .Here are some potential advantages of using ADR:
 • Save Time: A dispute often can be settled or decided much sooner with ADR;
often in a matter of months, even weeks, while bringing a lawsuit to trial can
take a year or more.

• Save Money: When cases are resolved earlier through ADR, the parties may
save some of the money they would have spent on attorney fees, court costs,
and experts’ fees.

• Increase Control Over the Process and the Outcome: In ADR, parties typically
play a greater role in shaping both the process and its outcome. In most ADR
processes, parties have more opportunity to tell their side of the story than
they do at trial. Some ADR processes, such as mediation, allow the parties to
fashion creative resolutions that are not available in a trial. Other ADR
processes, such as arbitration, allow the parties to choose an expert in a
particular field to decide the dispute.

• Preserve Relationships: ADR can be a less adversarial and hostile way to

resolve a dispute. For example, an experienced mediator can help the
parties effectively communicate their needs and point of view to the other
side. This can be an important advantage where the parties have a
relationship to preserve.

• Increase Satisfaction: In a trial, there is typically a winner and a loser. The

loser is not likely to be happy, and even the winner may not be completely
satisfied with the outcome. ADR can help the 1parties find win-win solutions
and achieve their real goals. This, along with all of ADR’s other potential
advantages, may increase the parties’ overall satisfaction with both the
dispute resolution process and the outcome.

• Improve Attorney-Client Relationships: Attorneys may also benefit from ADR

by being seen as problem-solvers rather than combatants. Quick, cost-
effective, and satisfying resolutions are likely to produce happier clients and
thus generate repeat business from clients and referrals of their friends and
associates.

India
Alternative dispute resolution in India is not new and it was in existence even under
the previous Arbitration Act, 1940. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has
been enacted to accommodate the harmonization mandates of UNCITRAL Model. To
streamline the Indian legal system the traditional civil law known as Code of Civil
Procedure, (CPC) 1908 has also been amended and section 89 has been introduced.
Section 89 (1) of CPC provides an option for the settlement of disputes outside the
court. It provides that where it appears to the court that there exist elements, which
may be acceptable to the parties, the court may formulate the terms of a possible
settlement and refer the same for arbitration, conciliation, mediation or judicial
settlement.

Due to extremely slow judicial process, there has been a big thrust on Alternate
Dispute Resolution mechanisms in India. While Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 is a fairly standard western approach towards ADR, the Lok Adalat system
constituted under National Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 is a uniquely Indian
approach.