Sign In
  • InsideTrack
  • March 13, 2009

    Six reasons for ADR

    Six reasons for ADR

     

    • Less spectacle is more productive. “People behave badly, or posture, when there is an audience and that is really apparent in a courtroom,” Terry Peppard said. “In a confidential dispute resolution process conducted in a conference room, the lawyers are more likely to think in a problem-solving way.”

    • A process tailored to the dispute. “ADR participants can choose their third-party neutral,” Peppard said. “They also select a neutral who understands their profession or business. In court, parties get a general jurisdiction judge – not a specialist who understands the issues at a glance. This saves time and money.”

    • Better for clients. When lawyers have reason to believe there is a rational, informed process to resolve differences, it discourages bad behavior that hurts clients. Peppard said that in the middle of an argument over fees, it is not unheard of that one party walks away with client files which can create serious legal and ethical difficulties for all concerned.

    • Greater freedom to find solutions. Peppard said that parties might start with the more adversarial process of arbitration. But after discovery and other preparation for an arbitration hearing, he said, they are free to switch to the collaborative problem-solving technique of mediation without first seeking approval from a court or other outsider. If parties have been working through the State Bar’s Lawyer Dispute Resolution program, Peppard said this change does not even incur additional cost beyond the initial $300 filing fee.

    • ADR is a relative bargain. A typical civil suit can last two-and-a-half years from filing to judgment and in that time attorney fees and court costs pile up, Peppard said. Arbitration, by contrast, is resolved in a matter of months and mediation can occur in 30 or 60 days.

    • Dirty laundry stays in the hamper. Peppard said a great strength of ADR is that arbitrators and mediators serving in the program are specifically excluded from the Supreme Court Rule 20:8.3 general obligation to report apparent ethical offenses revealed to them in the course of their service as LDR program neutrals.


Join the conversation! Log in to comment.

News & Pubs Search

-
Format: MM/DD/YYYY