Traditional and Nontraditional Litigation
Angela Dunn
October 31, 2011
LAW 531
Dr. Lisa Browning

Traditional and Nontraditional Litigation There are many disagreements daily that require courts or authorities to assist in deciding who is right and who is wrong. Using traditional or nontraditional litigation are ways that we have chosen to provide assistance in making sound and consistent decisions or ruling. The following paper will compare and contrast both litigation processes.
Traditional Litigation
Traditional litigation refers to using the court system as a resolution to disputes. The disputes are held in a court room with either a judge or jury deciding who wins and who loses. Nontraditional litigation involves using alternative dispute resolutions to resolve disagreements and is normally not held in a courtroom. While traditional litigations can be very costly, take years to resolve, and draw wanted or unwanted media attention, nontraditional litigations are just the opposite.
Traditional litigation involves jury selection for the majority of the cases presented. Attorneys are either with the defendant or for the prosecution. The duration of the litigation can last for weeks or months depending on the case. Many cases draw media attention which can lead to a case being “tried in the media.”
Alternative Dispute Resolutions Most companies choose alternative dispute resolutions (ADR) to solve their legal matters. There are several different types of ADR which include arbitration, negotiation, mediation, conciliation, mini-trial, fact-finding and judicial referee (Cheeseman, 2010). Arbitration is the most commonly used type of ADR, and is when the two arguing parties choose an impartial third person to listen to both parties argument and make a decision. During arbitration, witnesses can be called upon and all evidence is also presented