Arguably, there are various issues and crimes in the world today, but most of them do not go to trial. Hence, it is crucial to implement and understand traditional and alternative dispute resolution litigation equally. The nontraditional and traditional litigation are available for organizations and individuals for them to resolve disputes. Hence, it is appropriate to compare and contrast traditional and nontraditional litigation forms of ADR (alternative dispute resolution).
Undeniably, the ultimate goal of both traditional and nontraditional litigation system is to ensure that dispute among the parties involved is solved. In both scenarios, the parties involved in the dispute are not suppose to decide the outcome, this implies a third party need to be a component of the course in order to make the decision. In the judicial dispute, that is carried out in traditional litigation way, the dispute is ruled by a jury. On the other hand, in ADR, the third party involved comes in between the plaintiff and the defendant in making a decision. Moreover, in litigation, the defendant and plaintiff in the dispute are represented in a typical manner by the attorneys.
Perhaps, it is clear that the main objective of traditional and nontraditional forms of litigation is the same, but what differ are the methods that are used to achieve this goal. In most case, traditional proceedings are mainly expensive since it follows various legal processes. On the same note, traditional litigation is time consuming as compared to the nontraditional litigation forms of ADR. As a matter of fact, before a dispute is resolved in traditional litigation way a lot of legal process is involved. This may include jury selection, pleadings, pretrial judgment, plaintiff statement, defendant statement, as well as verdict. Hence, this formal process makes traditional litigation time consuming and expensive.
Possibly, the processes involved in ADR are very quick and less expensive. In fact, studies show that many cases and disputes are resolved through ADR methods. In fact, ADR has saved a lot of resources and money that could be required for preparations. Conversably, the plaintiff and the defendant get a chance to contribute to the outcome, since each one of them has an opinion. Arbitrators and mediators are always free to undertake the decision on cases without following case precedence. Therefore, the case decided through ADR methods is more convenient since it makes all parties feel the outcome is based on their opinions and agreement. In the litigation, rules allow individuals to have certain testimony, evidence and documents, but these rules may not be applicable in ADR methods. Some of the ADR methods include negotiation, mediation, fact-finding, mini-trial, as well as judicial referee.
Conclusively, both traditional and nontraditional methods are very beneficial in society today, especially in solving disputes. Its similarities are based on the outcome of the dispute resolution process and its effectiveness. On the other hand, the methods vary in terms of cost, time, and processes involved.