Dispute Settlement Counsel

Tough Economic Times Call for More Efficient Dispute Resolution

I’m often reminded and amazed by how sensible and logical it is to opt for using certain forms of alternative dispute resolution.  But even moreso in these kinds of tough economic times, where people are searching for ways to cut costs and not sacrifice quality or efficiency, the good sense and logic of alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) screams out to be recognized and understood.  Here are seven very compelling reasons why using ADR methods have serious advantages:

1.  Costs savings; 2.  Time efficiency;  3. Preservation of important business and personal relationships  4. Ability to design solutions tailored to the specific circumstances and situation; 5. Maintaining confidentiality; 6.  Sovereignty of the Client; 7.  Civility, Respect and doing it right.  

Let’s take a look at each of these.

First of seven compelling reasons to utilize ADR methods:Week one; cost efficiency

The cost savings of using an interest-based negotiation based method of dispute as an alternative to the positional approaches of litigation or arbitration are significant.  Statistics have shown that certain ADR process are often a mere 25% of the legal fees of litigation is some cases, and sometimes even less than that.  In addition to the daunting burden of legal fees for litigation, the direct costs such as filing fees, process server fees, deposition costs, electronic discovery costs and in collaborative law, the cost of the neutral (arbitrator or mediator) are all eliminated.  Also eliminated are much of the indirect costs to businesses when employees are taken away from their work to dig for documents or electronic information, testify at depositions, arbitration hearings or trials, respond to demands for supporting affidavits or written interrogatories.

There are also two often overlooked but important costs to employers, businesses and mission-based organizations:  the time spent by staff members preparing for depositions, hearings and trials and the time lost when staff are preoccupied with the dispute during their water cooler, email, coffee break and lunch conversations.  It doesn’t take much thought to imagine the man hours lost in these conversations, the polarizing impact on the office staff or organization, the lines of division between the supporters of each of the two sides involved in the dispute, especially in matters like sexual harassment, discrimination abuse, or controversial adverse employment actions.  And it’s not only the lost time and productivity, it’s also the adverse change in morale in the workplace environment when it is charged by a public, positional and adversarial conflict.

Finally, should expert witnesses be needed, the cost in ADR processes that use neutral independent experts rather than separate experts for each party are slashed in half and born by all parties involved.  Gone are the needs to prepare two experts for depositions and for trial, for narrative reports for each party, and for the actual costs of the expert’s time for taking a deposition or testifying at trial.  That is replaced by the smaller cost of having one neutral, independent expert at the negotiation table serving both sides and focused on satisfying interests, rather than shoring up one side’s argument and tearing down the position of the other side.  Instead of having two or more experts as hired guns that often result in no more than an expensive wash, neutral experts in the Collaborative process help to better focus the options developed as they are free to openly assist both parties develop solutions.

Next week – Time Efficiency