Litigation - Term Paper Example

There are two sorts of legal methods that can be used to resolve conflicts between individuals as well as organizations, these include traditional methods of litigation such as conflict resolution through the judicial procedure, and litigation methods that are recognized as modern methods of conflict resolution and include ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution). There are several disputes that do not qualify for a judicial proceeding, so such cases are resolved through ADR. This writing will pay emphasis on both the traditional as well as modern ways of solving conflicts and the differences and similarities between them.

Litigation is a term used to refer to the process of filing, defending, and standing in favor or against a particular case of law (Cheeseman 35). Before litigation is conducted, the case of the conflict experiences several processes including initial pleadings, judgments that take place before the trial, dismissal of the case, and settlement of the case. Due to so many phases involved in the litigation process, organizations, as well as individuals, have to spend a lump sum of finances, and an ample amount of time is wasted in solving the conflict. These proceedings even negatively impact the image of the parties involved in may cause disturbances in day to day running of the business. Due to these heavy risks associated with judicial proceedings, organizations tend to select alternative methods of solving disputes such as bargaining, arbitration as well as mediation (Cheeseman 43).

There are several differences between the process of conflict resolution through judicial proceedings and ADR. In judicial proceedings, third parties are involved such as the jury to decide whether or not an individual is guilty and worthy of punishment. In the case of certain methods of ADR, a third party is rarely involved and in certain methods third party involvement even takes place the third party is a neutral representative and the party can only participate in the facilitation of negotiation. For example in the case of Arbitration, a neutral third party gets involved and is regarded as the arbitrator and is selected by the parties involved in the dispute and has the responsibility of listening to the case of both the parties and the decision taken by the arbitrator decides the outcome of the case. When the conciliation dispute settlement method is used, the parties involved do not negotiate with each other in a face-to-face manner. Due to this a conciliator who is mostly neutral in nature is used and he acts as the negotiator from both ends.

If dispute resolution is conducted with the assistance of a judicial procedure, a heavy amount of time and money of the parties involved is invested. Before a case reaches the court, it has to go through several stages, and due to this, a case may end up conceding months and in some extreme cases, it may even consume years. Alternative dispute resolution systems are much quick compared to the judicial procedure. Secondly, in case of judicial proceedings, parties have to obtain assistance from an attorney and attorneys charge heavy fees to fight a case, and the more time a case takes, the higher the amount of accumulated fees of the attorney. In the case of ADR, the methods used are quite cheap as the parties can contest against each other or negotiate with each other on their own. The fourth difference between the two procedures is the difference in setting, while court proceedings are conducted in a courtroom which can become quite intimidating for the parties involved, the methods used in ADR mostly take place in one of the party’s offices or some conference hall or room. In the case of the traditional litigation system, any one of the parties involved can file a lawsuit and the other party may have to fight against him even if the claims made by one of the parties are not true at all (Lundmark 126). No method of ADR can be used until both parties are not ready to solve the dispute and negotiate with each other.

On one hand, there are several differences between the two methods, on the other hand, there are several similarities between them. Firstly, both these methods have the same aim and that is to solve the dispute and in most cases, a neutral third party such as the jury or the arbitrator is used to resolve the dispute (Lundmark 126). Secondly, both methods try to solve the dispute in such a manner that justice is served. Those who are guilty should be penalized and those who are victims should gain rewards.