Traditional Litigation System Comparisons and Contrasts
With
Nontraditional Forms of ADR
Steven M. Merkes
LAW, 531
September 25, 2012
Andrew Van Ness Traditional Litigation System Comparisons and Contrasts with Nontraditional Forms of ADR
Law was intended and foreseen as a way to protect and prohibit people from against unwelcomed intervention from other people, organizations, and society. Law is also intended to stop people from participating or conducting themselves in objectionable actions. The United States legal system has a traditional litigation resolution form of law and a nontraditional judicial dispute resolution. The legal systems of traditional litigation resolution are suit, answer, discovery, trial, or jury. Nontraditional judicial dispute resolution or better known as alternative dispute resolution (ADR) forms are known as mediation, arbitration, negotiation, conciliation, and mini-trial. The paper will consider how the traditional court system and the nontraditional ADR alternatives compare and contrast within the U.S. legal system. Businesses are selecting alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods over traditional legal methods because of more regularity conditions, time, and larger expenses. The traditional litigation legal system is heard in a court of law, and the outcome is determined as winner or loser. The traditional litigation time line is very drawn out. It requires initiating a lawsuit, filing a complaint, waiting for court case validation, issuing a summons, waiting for the defendant to file an answer, and replying plus several other processes. The traditional system has a very long time frame for resolution not to forget the risk of losing the trial or lawsuit. The system is based on winner takes all with a very combative approach. There is only one winner. Many risks exist when the traditional style of