{"id":38022,"date":"2016-03-31T19:26:23","date_gmt":"2016-04-01T00:26:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/uncategorized\/what-are-the-benefits-to-alternative-dispute-resolution.html"},"modified":"2017-01-05T14:24:25","modified_gmt":"2017-01-05T19:24:25","slug":"what-are-the-benefits-to-alternative-dispute-resolution","status":"publish","type":"corporate","link":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/litigation-disputes\/what-are-the-benefits-to-alternative-dispute-resolution.html","title":{"rendered":"What are the Benefits to Alternative Dispute Resolution?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

This article was edited and reviewed by FindLaw Attorney Writers<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n | Last reviewed\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Legally Reviewed\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Fact-Checked\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors<\/a>. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n<\/section>\n\n\n\n

Time<\/b><\/p>\n

According to statistics compiled by Judith Resnik, 95 percent of all federal lawsuits settle, most of them on the courthouse steps (see<\/i> Judith Resnik, Falling Faith: Adjudicatory Procedure in Decline, 53 U. Chi. L. Rev. 494, 511-12 [1986]). Implementation of a carefully considered ADR strategy early in the case — often in the context of a pending court case — can result in a just resolution months or even years earlier than through litigation alone.<\/p>\n

Money<\/b><\/p>\n

For many routine business disputes, litigation procedures under the rules of court are simply too cumbersome and slow to produce cost-effective results. The discovery process is not based on the notion of obtaining the most relevant information at a reasonable cost, but provides for the discovery of all information likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Although courts will restrict discovery that is burdensome to a party, often they do so long after any balance between cost and benefit has been lost.<\/p>\n

Various studies on negotiations, including an important study by Roger Fisher and William Ury of the Harvard Negotiation Project, confirm that the later in the process settlement is reached, the higher the cost. As the parties dig in their heels, attempt to justify, prove, and bolster their respective positions, they consume more and more time and expense preparing for trial, and the cost of settlement invariably rises. Frequently, resolution through ADR<\/a> enables the parties to eliminate or minimize the expenses of discovery and motion practice — the greatest expenses in litigation — and reach an acceptable resolution earlier in the process.<\/p>\n

Results<\/b><\/p>\n

While routine business disputes are frequently and efficiently resolved through the use of ADR processes, complex cases involving many parties and huge stakes are also suited to resolution using ADR. Some of the largest and most difficult disputes have been resolved through court-ordered mediation. These were cases the parties themselves doubted could ever be settled, given the stakes or emotions involved. Yet, as with most disputes, even highly charged, incredibly complex disputes can be resolved through negotiations when both of the parties appreciate the risks of losing control over the result. In Minnesota, many high-stakes cases of great complexity have been resolved through ADR, including securities fraud<\/a> class actions, large business disputes, merger and acquisition claims, RICO claims, environmental disasters, and international transactions.<\/p>\n

The success of ADR in resolving complex cases was noted by the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Dispute Resolution:<\/p>\n

The use of ADR to resolve all pending litigation following the L’Ambience Plaza construction collapse in Bridgeport, Connecticut within 20 months of the disaster, a process that involved five judicial bodies, more than 44 plaintiffs, approximately 40 potential defendants, several government agencies, and nearly 200 attorneys, represents a dazzling display of the potential impact of the sophisticated use of ADR in complex cases. J. Michael Keating, Jr., ABA Dispute Resolution Kit (1989)<\/p>\n

ADR holds other important advantages in addition to savings of time and money. For example:<\/p>\n