Traditional vs. Non-Traditional Litigation

428 Words2 Pages
Compare and Contrast the Traditional Litigation System with the Non-Traditional Forms of ADR Introduction There are two forms of litigation used within the court system. The first is traditional litigation. It is a procedure used to decide quarrels within the civil court system. It is based on the adversarial approach also known as a face-to-face battle in which there will be one winner and one loser at the end. The other is a non-traditional procedure known as Alternative Dispute Resolutions (ADR) and it is now currently being used more frequently than the traditional method as a way to reach an agreement in a dispute. The author will briefly discuss the similarities and differences of traditional litigation vs. non-traditional forms of ADR. Traditional litigation requires that a grievance be filed with the court and therefore the plaintiff has a certain amount of time to submit an objection to these allegations. What follows next is a pre-trial, then a trial. The trail allows each opposing party is allowed to state or present their side of the case. Either a jury or judge will have the concluding verdict based on their accounts. This procedure of litigation can be very costly with a large amount of time being involved. It can also be very stressful and emotional for both parties well-being along with a lot of turmoil occurring during the process. In contrast, alternative dispute resolution can be less costly and more efficient than the traditional litigation process. Asserted to, Bingham, L., Nabatchi, T., Senger, J. M., & Jackman, M. (2009)”When ADR was used, 65% of cases settled (only 29% of cases settled when it was not used” (p225). ADR can reach a resolution in litigations by utilizing many different types of approaches. A few examples would be: mediation, arbitration, and negotiation. Conclusion The end result of traditional and

More about Traditional vs. Non-Traditional Litigation

Open Document