Traditional litigation system A traditional litigation system refers to dispute resolution through utilizing a civil court system. This system has a basis on an adversarial justice system whereby attorneys have an obligation of representing their clients within the bound laws and canons of professional responsibility. The court's proceedings right from an action's commencement to the trial inclusion are governed by civil procedures and detailed rules which are formal. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is a process whereby parties involved in a dispute decide to resolve their own disputes without going to court. The main reason behind this form of dispute resolution is to save on court expenses as it is considered cheaper compared to traditional litigation systems (What is the meaning of Traditional litigation system n.d).
A question can be defined as a request for information, factual or not. It is also something that can be used both verbally and non-verbally, though most communicated interactions are of a verbal manner. Within a courtroom, lawyers are actually trained to manipulate this and as a result only ask questions to which the answers are known, creating stress for the witness, this is regarded as a legitimate tactic. When a witness is aware of this, and can clearly observe the confidence that a lawyer possesses, it undoubtedly has an effect, often capable of slipping up the individual questioned, which can be advantageous for a lawyer (Hargie, Saunders & Dickson 1994). The courtroom is not the only time in which lawyers use questioning, outside of this they are involved with interviews, depositions and witness rehearsals, all contextually different scenarios where questioning is implemented by lawyers.
A complaint is a written account of the victim’s legal claims against the defendant if the letter is not sent out. Depending on where the case is that is where the compliant has to be filed out. After the lawsuit has begun, all parties may need depositions of everyone that have imperative information that has to do with the case. Some cases people are interviewed about the situation. The deposition is recorded, and it most likely happens at the attorney’s firm without a judge being there.
If bail has not previously been set, it is often set at the same time as the arraignment. Bail (or "bond") is often granted in a standard amount, depending upon the crime charged. In civil trials, one person or party has reached the conclusion that their outstanding disagreement or dispute with another individual or entity can no longer be resolved through informal damage plea bargaining without the intervention of the judicial system and a civil trial. To initiate the process of a civil trial, individuals are required to file a complaint within the court of appropriate jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is determined by assessing whether the court receiving the complaint has power over a defendant and whether the property involved in a dispute is within the given jurisdiction.
Alternative Dispute Resolution Focus on Mediation Richard. K. Pope MGT 5193.E1 Negotiation Skills for Managers Amberton University Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is the process and technics for resolving disputes outside of the judicial process (formal litigation or court system). Many of the courts in the United States in order to help alleviate overcrowding and backlogs are requiring parties to use some form of ADR to try and resolve their issues before allowing their case to be heard. There are several forms of ADR, mediation, arbitration negotiation and collaborative law, most often mediation is the preferred method. Mediation is by far the most accepted method in alternative dispute resolution.
In ‘The Concept of the Political’ we are informed by the very first sentence ‘the concept of the state presupposes the concept of the political’, his decision to firstly note the importance of defining the political can be linked to his legal training, having dealt with lawyers. For Schmitt the state defines the political, and the political is defined by his distinction of friend and enemy. This antagonism between friend and enemy is uses to suggest the impossibility of perpetual peace, and political actions can be distinguished via this antagonism. The enemy is not ones moral enemy, the enemy is ‘the other’. Important for Schmitt’s, is that one understands that today’s enemy could be tomorrows friend, thus there is no internal enemy.
ALL’S FAIR IN LOVE AND LAW: AN ANALYSIS OF THE COMMON INTENTION CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ANDREW DYSON * The article analyses the application of the common intention constructive trust to disputes involving the family home, as the law stands after Stack v. Dowden and the numerous recent cases interpreting that decision. It is suggested that instances of actual unfairness are rarer than often thought, because of the judiciary’s willingness to manipulate the formal rules of the trust in order to avoid injustice. Criticism should instead be focused on the hidden costs of allowing fairness to trump formality: a hole in the integrity of the law, and the spiralling costs of litigation which flow from the complexity of the doctrine. It is concluded that a statutory scheme is the only way forward for the law of cohabitation. I.
In the civil system of courts the parties are also adverse to each other, however instead of arguing against each other, each party provides the evidence to the judge whom will then ask the questions and from there may decide the outcome of the case. These processes are known as inquisitorial due to the nature of the ‘inquisition’ by the judge. Controversy has arisen as to which system of trial provides society with the favoured ‘justice.’ It has been argued that the adversary system is favoured over the inquisitorial system as the personal biases of a judge in the conduct of a case are less obvious. Many people claim that such a system does not achieve justice, as juries, in particular, can be convinced by the quality of the barristers’ legal arguments, rather than actual evidence. Alternatively, the inquisitorial system may be said to provide better justice in that a judge has a broader range of possibilities to ask wider and deeper questions, and can therefore gather information that the parties did not intend to expose.
The client just has to choose the appropriate form for the dispute. According to Harms (2011), the chart below compares each type of litigation: Nontraditional Litigation | Traditional Litigation | Less formal | More formal | Quick resolution | Slower resolution | Less expensive | More expensive | Heard by an arbitrator or mediator | Heard by a judge | You get an opinion | You get a judgment | The opinion can usually be filed with a court and turned into a judgment | Judgments are enforceable through the court system | | | (para. 3-4, pg. 1). Contrast of the Two Litigation Forms There are several stages and methods a client must go through or choose when dealing with the traditional or nontraditional litigation method.
Related to this, are questions about the types of lawyers, what steps are needed to become a Trial lawyer along with various skills to become successful. Main Types of Licensed Lawyers There are two main types of licensed lawyers, which are classified as transactional lawyers and litigators. Transactional lawyers do not attend legal proceedings. Transactional lawyers prepare legal documents, contract and other legal work. Trial lawyers are often called litigators.