Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website!
The traditional and nontraditional form of litigation Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is debated on a daily basis as to its effectiveness over one another. In this paper i will discuss both forms of litigation procedures followed and how they relate and distinct from one another. The traditional form of litigation is the older most over used form to resolve civil or other court matter issues that sometimes involves a jury or trial where a Felony is involved. The traditional system is known to be a trial procedure where there is more formality involved where judgments are more enforced through the court system.
The traditional system offers three known aspects which are: answer, discovery and trial. The newer and highly growing form of litigation being used is called the Alternative Dispute Resolution. The ADR is in most cases the opposite of the traditional trial method. The ADR is known to offer more effective settlements than the traditional form of litigation. The differences between the traditional forms of litigation (trial) versus the new form of litigation (ADR) are that the new form (ADR) is less formal than the traditional system of litigation.
Formality is important but there might alternatives to following formality which are found in the ADR method. Another distinction that the ADR is known to offer is a quicker resolution than the traditional form of litigation. It is a fact that a higher processing litigation system that offers faster resolutions is the most effective. The ADR offers the faster method of resolution. Another difference besides time saving is money saving. The ADR offers a least expensive procedure that will save time and money to the parties involved.
Another pivotal distinction is that the ADR system is heard by an arbitrator or mediator where a traditional (trial) system is heard by a judge who has a conservative standpoint and believes that cases be heard by judges only. The formal litigation system conclusively offers a judgment while an ADR system offers an opinion. The ADR opinion is at most times filed with a court which can be turned into a judgment with discretion involved while a traditional form of litigation offers a judgment which is enforceable by the court system.
Using an ADR litigation alternative might be cheaper to settle out than going to trial. A non-disclosure document is usually signed under the ADR system where no one will find out about the incident or what transpired under the ADR system. The similarities between both forms are that they are both proven methods of legal resolution alternatives which ultimately bring about a resolution to a case. They both provide functional methods of reaching a resolution which helps make it enforceable upon the court.
Both methods require professional and trained listeners to listen to their cases and make discretional decisions which help further the sentencing or providing alternatives to a resolution to the case. It is imperative that both alternative possibility forms of litigations systems be offered in the American system because they both provide means to resolving legal matters. Even though the ADR method is mostly used, the traditional (trial) method defines the American formal system which is mostly over looked at this present time until the ADR system completely takes over.