Traditional Versus Nontraditional Litigation

"Compromise is the best and cheapest lawyer" (Stevenson, 2001-2012). When a dispute arises an array of choices come to light. Basic questions need to be answered in order to choose appropriately; what is the acceptable outcome and what approach is adequate to attain the desired outcome? How aggressive of a stance is needed to achieve the outcome? Most importantly, how much pride can be set aside to realize the acceptable result? Compromise by definition is either; "a settlement of differences by mutual concessions" or "an endangering, especially of reputation" (Dictionary.com, LLC, 2012). Which philosophy do you prescribe to? The answers to these questions will determine the avenue of disagreement resolution; litigation or alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The following paragraphs will define and compare litigation and alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

Definition of Traditional Litigation and ADR

Litigation is the "act or process of bringing or contesting a legal action in court" (Farlex, Inc., 2012). Alternative dispute resolution is generally known as arbitration, however, can comprise of other processes of resolution. Arbitration is a process of disagreement resolution between two or more parties resolved by unbiased persons with the intent to avoid high costs and prolonged litigation (WebFinance, Inc, 2012).

Traditional Litigation versus ADR

Litigation is a more formal process whereas ADR is less formal thereby less intimidating to clients. The trial system would be considered adversarial at best thus ‘winner-take-all' mentality limiting outcomes and perceptions (ADR versus Litigation, 2000). The emotional toil a trial places on the litigants can be far more costly than the suit itself. Litigation is a slower process because of the rules of evidence that must be followed; jury trials can prolong the process significantly. ADR is a speedier process leading to quicker rulings. Attorney fees accumulate during litigation where the ADR process is typically less expensive; however, the arbitrator is paid by the hour and the costs of discovery and depositions may add up. During the litigation process the case is heard and decided by a judge; during ADR the case is heard by an arbitrator and an opinion is rendered. Precedence is not necessarily needed for the arbitrator or mediator to make a decision whereas a judge will use precedence as a guide. At the end of the trial the judgment(s) from the judge are entered through the court system, thereby enforceable. Once the opinion is rendered for the binding ADR the opinion can be filed with the court and turned into a judgment thereby enforceable; a non-binding ADR award is non-enforceable.

The Uniform Arbitration Act adopted on the state level and the Federal Arbitration Act adopted on the federal level is testimony to the increase