Alternative Dispute Resolution

Practice of Alternative Dispute Resolution

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is the way to go when trying to resolve matters in a quick and inexpensive manner. ADR is the method to resolve civil disputes without going to trial. In ADR, parties meet with a neutral professional trained in handling disputes. With the guidance of the neutral party, also known as the mediator, they talk with each other about the problems that caused the dispute and find ideas for resolving the differences. The process of ADR has shown that this approach is normally quicker, cheaper, and more agreeable for everyone involved than adjudication.

In most lawsuits, each party is responsible for paying the costs for the attorney. The litigation process is referred to the bringing, maintaining, and defense of a lawsuit. The phases in which a litigation process can be divided into are: pleadings, discovery, dismissals, and pretrial judgments, and settlement conference (Cheeseman, 2004). Both parties in the lawsuit would need to look at the cost-benefit analysis of the lawsuit. The factors that should be considered when deciding to bring or settle a lawsuit are many. The likelihood of winning or losing and the amount of money to be won or lost should justify why many lawsuits are settled through ADR. Though the possibility of the lawsuit to proceed is imminent. Depending of the severity of the lawsuit, it could proceed in any of the following court systems: limited-jurisdiction trial courts, general-jurisdiction trial courts, intermediate appellate courts, and a supreme court (Cheeseman, 2004).

The most commonly used form of ADR is arbitration. In arbitration, the parties chose an unbiased third party to hear and decide the dispute. The selection of arbitrators is from the members of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) (Chesseman, 2004). Another name for the arbitrator is called the neutral party, same as the mediator. But the mediator does not make a decision and instead acts as a teller of information between the parties and assist in reaching a settlement for the dispute.

In December of 2006, FEC Initiated (RAD) released an article on how they collected $16,000 in civil penalties through ADR program (FEC.gov, 2006). Labeled as ADR 302, ADR 328, the FEC collected $8,500 from ADR 302 and $7,500 from ADR 328 for a type of failure to comply with Commission regulations. On the other hand, a case such as ADR 341, the commission had to dismiss a complaint against Erickson for Congress because, "the amount in question was de minimus and the committee filed a report that disclosed the activity" (FEC.gov, 2006). To be compliant with the Federal Election Campaign Act, a mutual agreeable settlement must be reached to receive an expedient resolution. The respondent must express the readiness to participate in the ADR process in order for the case to be considered for ADR handling. While the case is being resolved, participation in mediation is if necessary. The benefits achieved by the FEC have been proven to be very effective.