Archive for June, 2011
Part II (Part I on June 18, 2011)
In our last blog, we began the discussion of what ADR is and why people are steadily asking their lawyers to use processes like mediation and collaborative law. We talked about arbitration becoming more and more like litigation. We discussed how the economy, the influence of information technology and a better informed public all contribute to a shift away from the long, expensive and cumbersome litigation process to more sustainable models of dispute resolution.
This shift is forcing lawyers to change the way they serve their clients. It is also pushing more lawyers toward training in mediation and collaborative law and adding these methods to their toolbox. Clients, better informed and more empowered, are seeking out these processes that were the “alternatives” to litigation. More and more, mediation, collaborative law and conciliation are the first choices and the “primary” ways to resolving conflict, while arbitration and court-based litigation are gradually becoming the alternatives that parties default to if they cannot resolve their dispute through the non-adversarial approaches.
In Australia, the legal community has already changed the references to reflect the growing demand for these more efficient methods. Australia now uses the phrase “Primary Dispute Resolution”, or “PDR” to refer to mediation, collaborative law and conciliation, and uses the older term ADR to refer to either litigation or arbitration or the entire spectrum of dispute resolution approaches. This same change has been encouraged in other places around the world. Read the rest of this entry »
Part 1 of 2 parts on PDR
In the language of the people, what we do at the Zeytoonian Center is work with people to resolve their disputes without going to court and without engaging in a process known as litigation. We use different approaches like mediation, collaborative law, conciliation, case evaluation and our own Integrated Dispute Resolution (“IDR”) to help people solve their problem and we tailor that approach to the specific situation and circumstances of the people in that particular dispute.
In our materials and writings and presentations we make, you’ll hear three different acronyms thrown around: “ADR”, “IDR” and a new one that we are going to start using now which will take the place of ADR, “PDR”. Lay people get annoyed when lawyers talk in legal jargon, and rightly so, so I want to use these next two blog posts to explain what each one is, what each one means, and then ask you to join us in changing their meaning to reflect your interests and replace ADR with PDR. We’ll explain what PDR is in the next blog. We’ll save IDR for another blog post.
ADR stands for alternative dispute resolution. ADR has included processes like mediation, arbitration, collaborative law, conciliation, etc. Historically, lawyers have viewed ADR as the alternative to litigation. As such, litigation has been the process of choice for lawyers. In some instances, usually because it’s stated in the terms of a contract, businesses will use arbitration instead of the courts. Read the rest of this entry »