Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a general term encompassing various techniques for resolving legal disputes without resorting to a trial. Some reasons for using ADR are that it is faster, less costly, easier, less formal, and less confrontational, it encourages creativity and searching for practical solutions, and it avoids the uncertainty involved with proceeding with a trial. Most ADR techniques involve the use of a neutral third party, such as a mediator or arbitrator, to assist in the resolution of the legal issue. A mediator generally assists the parties come to a resolution without deciding any issues and an arbitrator generally takes the place of a judge or jury and decides the case. A neutral third party is not always required. Many times our creative approaches, including: early investigation, education, honest evaluation and creative solutions resolve personal injury and employment claims before there is a need to involve a mediator or arbitrator. Some of the different types of ADR include:

• Non-mediated settlement
This process is where the parties and their counsel negotiate with each other without the help of a third party to come to a mutually satisfactory resolution of the case. This process is not ordered or overseen by a court and, therefore, is a private, rather than public, process.
• Mediation
In mediation, a neutral third party helps the parties come to an agreement about how to resolve the case. The mediator has no authority to impose a solution on the parties. Instead, he goes back and forth between sides to help them come to an understanding about how the case could be resolved to their mutual satisfaction. A mediator can be helpful in helping parties evaluate their case realistically, as the mediator can point out which facts or arguments he believes or rejects. When courts order parties to try ADR, they most often order mediation.
• Neutral Fact Finding
Neutral fact-finding involves the use of a neutral third party who investigates/determines a disputed fact or facts. This process is usually used for technical issues or in instances when significant factual issues are part of a larger dispute. Parties may negotiate to be bound or not bound by the fact-finding results.
• Early Neutral Evaluation
Early Neutral Evaluation is a process in which the parties to a dispute present evidence and arguments involved in the case to a neutral third party at an early stage in attempting to resolve the dispute. That third party makes a determination on the key issues in dispute, and most effective means of resolving the dispute without determining the facts of the dispute.
• Settlement Conferences
Such conferences are court sponsored events where a judge will attempt to work with the parties to resolve a case that has already been filed as a lawsuit. Many cases proceed with settlement conferences, but unfortunately many of these conferences are held 30 days or less prior to trial and many expenses associated with preparing the cases have already been expended by the parties making a settlement harder to achieve.
• Arbitration
In arbitration, the parties authorize a neutral third party (or panel) to decide the outcome of their dispute. The process is similar to a trial in the sense that each side presents facts and arguments to the decision maker(s), but it is different because the rules of evidence need not fully apply and the arbitrator(s) need not always adhere exactly to the law. Some arbitrations are binding while others are not. Non-binding arbitrations have been utilized by the courts since 1978 and are governed by the California Rules of Court. Generally, these arbitrations are somewhat informal and if either party does not like the Arbitrator's award, then the dissatisfied party simply informs the court by an articulated process and the litigation continues in that case. Occasionally, these judicial arbitrations assist the parties in evaluating the strength and weaknesses of their case and can lead to resolution.
• Summary jury trial or mini trial
These procedures permit parties to present their case to a judge or jury, which issues a non-binding opinion or verdict. The opinion or verdict is then used by the parties as a basis for settlement discussions. It helps the parties see what might happen at a trial or what other people might think about the facts and evidence.
• Private Trials
This is where the parties agree to a set of ground rules and allow a retired judge, a panel of retired judges, or perhaps a private jury to decide a case. Here the goal is completely ending the dispute more quickly than could be done in the normal court system, with potentially a different set of ground rules and no resort to post-trial motions or appeals.

There are also various combinations of the ADR types listed above and other creative solutions for resolving personal injury and employment matters without resorting to trials. ADR types are constantly evolving and we keep up to date on the latest successful methods to ensure our clients obtain the fair results as efficiently as possible. Each case is different and we work with our clients to create individual litigation plans that will work best for them and the facts and legal issues involved. If you have any questions, or need assistance now, please call or Contact Us!