Despite the differences in characteristics between negotiated settlement, conciliation, mediation, arbitration, and other forms of community justice, they all share a few fundamental qualities that distinguish them from the formal judicial framework. These features enable them to meet development goals in a different way than judicial systems.
ADR procedures are, in general, less formal than judicial procedures. In most cases, there are no formal pleadings, comprehensive written record, or rules of evidence, hence the rules of procedure are flexible. This informality appeals to certain people and is vital for broadening access to dispute resolution for others who are scared or unwilling to participate in more official processes. It's also crucial for lowering the time and expense of resolving disputes. The majority of systems function without any kind of formal representation.
ADR programmes, on the other hand, are tools for applying equity rather than the rule of law. Each case is adjudicated by a third party or negotiated between disputants themselves, depending on principles and terms that appear equitable in the given situation rather than consistently applied legal norms. ADR procedures are unlikely to set legal precedent or bring about changes in law or social standards. ADR methods are more likely to achieve efficient settlements at the price of fairness and consistency.
Other characteristics of ADR systems include greater direct participation by disputants in the process and in designing settlements, more direct dialogue and for reconciliation between potentially higher levels of confidentiality because public records are not typically kept, greater flexibility in designing creative settlements, less power to subpoena information, and less direct power of enforcement.
One of the largest reasons parties choose to resolve their disputes outside of the courts is cost. Judicial process for resolving any disputes involves court fees, documentation fees, advocate’s fees and many other extra costs. Moreover, if there is corruption present, the cost may rise even higher. ADR does not involve expert fees or courts costs. ADR usually costs much less than litigation, allowing smaller financial disputes a financially viable way to be settled. ADR also saves the money of government.
Adjudicative process for resolving conflicts are very lengthy since there are court decisions upon which the hearing is dependent. Litigation can take over a year to resolve because of different timing and dates involved. Matters that are being solved using the ADR method may take months or even just weeks to be resolved. ADR can be arranged by the parties and the panelist as soon as they are able to meet. Compared to the court process, The ADRs are as fast as the parties want it to be.
Privacy is fully securitized when it comes to Alternative Dispute Resolution. ADR is conducted in private, therefore avoiding publicity from the media. The public are also unable to attend. On the other hand disputes resolved in court are public and the judgments awarded are also in public. ADR provides certain resolution processes such as, Mediation, arbitration, and mini trials that are conducted in private maintain strict confidentiality.
ADR systems can be tailored to achieve a wide range of objectives. Some of these objectives are directly tied to enhancing the administration of justice and resolving specific conflicts. Some, on the other hand, are tied to other development goals, such as economic restructuring or community management of tensions and disputes. For example, an AID mission's dedication to improving the rule of law may make finding an effective, consensual means to resolve land disputes vital, not because land conflicts endanger the country's social and economic stability. Similarly, where judicial delays or corruption stymie foreign investment and economic restructuring, efficient dispute resolution procedures may be important to achieving economic development goals. ADR programmes can help with the following in the context of rule of law initiatives:
92 Lex provide alternative dispute resolution services through its team of professional arbitrators, mediators and training staff, and providing a wide range of dispute resolution services to the legal community, insurance industry, private businesses and government agencies across the country.
Services include arbitration, mediation, negotiation, settlement conferences, expert evaluation, neutral fact-finding, statutory discharge hearings, grievance-based hearing procedures, mini-trials, class action administration, dispute resolution system design and consulting, conflict management and mediation training, and discovery management.
Through our well-established platform for dispute resolution, 92 Lex Litigation team combines regional expertise and personalized client service to even the most complex business disputes. With the support from attorneys and professionals from other practice areas and fields, our litigation lawyers draw upon the unique skills of their colleague to provide a comprehensive approach to problem solving and create added value for our clients that sets us apart from the competition.