A web of social relation- Human Conflicts or Conflicts of Interests is referred to as the “Alternate Dispute Resolution” Society. It is desired that people don’t approach court but to ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION because an attempt is made to resolve them  quickly and cheaply.

ADR is usually less formal,  less expensive, and less time-consuming than a trial. ADR can also give people more opportunity to determine when and how their dispute will be resolved. Learn more about ADR programs available in the trial courts.

There are 4 types and procedure of ADR are  mediation, arbitration, neutral evaluation, settlement conference

1. Mediation

A mediator is an impartial person who helps the parties reach a mutually acceptable resolution of the dispute. The mediation helps the parties communicate so they can try to resolve the dispute on their own. The outcome is in the hands of the parties.

Cases for which mediation may be appropriate

When parties want to preserve their relationship, mediation may be useful when family members, neighbors, or business partners have a dispute, mediation may be used. When emotions are getting in the way of resolution, mediation is effective. An effective mediator can help the parties to communicate in a non-destructive way.

2. Arbitration

An arbiter is a neutral person who hears arguments and decides the outcome of a dispute. The rules of evidence are not as strict as a trial. it can be either binding or nonbinding. The parties waive their right to a trial and agree to accept the decision of the arbitrator as final. There is no right to appeal a decision. If the parties don’t accept the decision of the arbitrator, they are free to request a trial

Cases for Which Arbitration May Be Appropriate

For cases where the parties want another person to decide the outcome of their dispute for them, but would like to avoid the formality, time, and expense of a trial, it is best to use an alternative method of dispute resolution. It is appropriate for complex matters where the parties want a decision-maker who has experience in the subject matter.

3. Neutral evaluation

Each party gets a chance to present their case to a neutral evaluator. The evaluator gives an opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s evidence and arguments and how the dispute could be resolved. The expert in the subject matter of the dispute is the evaluator. Although the evaluator’s opinion is not binding, the parties often use it as a basis for negotiation.

Cases for Which Neutral Evaluation May Be Appropriate

Neutral evaluation may be most appropriate in cases in which there are technical issues that require special expertise to resolve or the only significant issue in the case is the amount of damages.

4. Settlement conference
Settlement conferences can be compulsory or voluntary. In both types of settlement conferences, the parties and their attorneys meet with a neutral person called a “settlement officer” to discuss possible settlement of their dispute. The judge or settlement officer doesn’t make a decision in the  case, but they help the parties evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the case and negotiate a settlement. Settlement conferences are appropriate when there is a settlement option. Settlement conferences can be held close to the trial date.