Why Dispute Resolution is Better than a Civil Case

Dispute resolutions are methods of settling civil differences outside a formal court of law. They have various advantages over litigations, not the least of which is the significantly reduced cost. Dispute resolution plays a large role mostly in business and family affairs – either in the division of property when business partners separate or in the separation of husband and wife and the subsequent division of property and custody of children, most individuals prefer the relative anonymity of a dispute resolution rather than having to wash their dirty laundry in public.

There are three kinds of dispute resolution:

• Mediation: involves an amicable resolution to the problem in the presence of a neutral individual whose main role is to smooth ruffled feathers and help them reach an understanding. A mediator is not someone who tries to bring a reconciliation between the two warring parties; rather, his or her role is limited to remaining an almost silent spectator as both parties try to reach an amicable settlement, stepping in only to prevent potential flare ups and physical altercations.

• Neutral Evaluation: A neutral evaluation is similar to a court trial in that an expert on the law, like a judge or senior lawyer, is provided with details of both sides of the case and asked to provide his or her opinion on the ruling both parties can expect if they take their differences before a court of law. Each of the parties, or their individual lawyers, present the facts of the case either as written statements or as oral depositions, and wait for the neutral third party arbitrator to provide his or her version of the outcome.
  

• Arbitration: involves a third party adjudicator who listens to both sides of the case and pronounces a ruling, as is done in a court of law.

Mediation and neutral evaluation are different from arbitration because:

• Both parties have to agree by the decision of the arbitrator as opposed to mediation or neutral evaluation where the parties are free to seek the services of other mediators if they are not satisfied with the present advice or are unable to reach an amicable solution to their differences.

• A ruling in an arbitration is similar to the ruling of a judge in a court of law. But, while it has a whole lot of similarities with a civil case, there are a number of differences:

1. It’s not as expensive, although you do have to pay for the services of the arbitrator for their time and expertise. Court cases are notorious for draining you of all your resources, what with having to pay for attorneys, expert witnesses and the cost of a trial. Compared to this rigmarole, arbitration is a cheap (yet legal) option.
2. You don’t have to wait for the court calendar to clear before your case is heard, thus saving yourself precious time in which you can recoup your losses and get on with your work and life rather than waste time in limbo waiting for your case to come to trial.
3. And best of all, your private affairs remain private. Dispute resolutions are not open affairs like court cases where the proceedings are transcribed by a court reporter and saved for posterity. This saves you the ignominy of losing both existing and future clients as a result of the ugliness of the dispute.

This post was contributed by Kelly Kilpatrick, who writes on the subject of the colleges for criminal justice. She invites your feedback at kellykilpatrick24@gmail.com.