Litigation
The hearings I provide fall under the umbrella of alternative dispute resolution - called ‘alternative’ because they don’t involve the courts. Before we go into more detail about how they work, it’s helpful to
contrast them with litigation, which is the form of dispute resolution
most people are familiar with.
The litigation system is not designed to solve issues in a way that equally benefits everyone involved.
From the beginning, a lawsuit pits two sides against one another, pulling with all their might in opposite directions. It’s like a tug-of-war to see who can pull the other party over the line to their side and win.
Moreover, a case can drag on for years, with no fixed end date and no certain outcome.
Going to court is also complicated by the other people involved. In addition to the plaintiff and defendant, they each have their own lawyer. The lawyers bring their own dynamics to the equation, like their style, philosophy of practice, and how well they get on with one another and the judge.
You also have to consider the judge, whose primary concern is to:
1. Weigh the pros and cons of each side’s case, and
2. Consider similar past cases so that all matters in our judicial system are dealt with consistently.
The court system has multiple layers and different priorities, and focusing on a win-win outcome for the people who disagree is nearly impossible.
Sometimes litigation truly is necessary, but when it comes to finding mutually beneficial, stress-free solutions, it’s best treated as a last resort.
This is where alternative dispute resolution (ADR) comes in.