Alternative dispute resolution, and particularly mediation, is known to be an excellent tool for resolving high-exposure cases. From the defense perspective, parties use this tool to avoid substantial risk in favor of a more certain outcome, as well as to limit costs and fees. From the plaintiff’s side, it is a way to limit time and effort that could otherwise be put to valuable use elsewhere. It also gives plaintiffs some sense of control over the result, as they have the final say in determining whether or not to ratify and accept the offer. However, due to the costs that can be associated with mediation, ADR can sometimes be a tough sell to clients in lower-exposure matters.
Arguably, however, ADR is more effective—and more necessary—in lower-exposure cases. Limiting the time that a plaintiffs attorney works on a file, and cutting off the cost of defense at an appropriate time, can have a far more dramatic impact on the bottom line in a $25,000 to $50,000 case than it will have on a $250,000 to $500,000 case.
This content has been archived.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]
