Alternative dispute resolution — arbitration and mediation — has evolved during the past 20 years to become a major force in resolving complex disputes at multiple levels. ADR offers private- and public-sector parties involved in disputes options other than litigation. Both disciplines have grown in scope and in the numbers of organizations and individuals offering ADR services. As with growth in any field, ADR’s expansion has created some controversy and some challenges, both of which are healthy as long as the industry addresses them candidly and with innovation. Dealt with otherwise, they could augur poorly for ADR’s future as a stand-alone legal alternative; ADR could morph into a kind of sublitigation service offered by law firms, possibly diluting its benefits as we know them.
I believe ADR faces two immediate challenges: widely expressed concerns about the cost and expanding arbitration time lines, and public opinions by respected academics and others relying on anecdote and surmise to criticize — particularly arbitration — without accurate data or metrics to support their claims.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
