Alternative dispute resolution outlines the diferent methods o setling a dispute so that
parties don’t have to go to court tt allows the parties to negotiate with or without a lawyer
There are ew orms o ADR such as:
a Negotiation between lawyers: lawyers can negotiate with each other to reach a
setlement while the clients will only be aseed to approve the setlement terms
b Negotiation between the parties: This is where parties deal with each other themselves
and lawyers are there only to advise on the terms the parties will agree on Parties can
negotiate without lawyers
c Mediation: Where clients will have a mediator instead o a lawyer to deal with the issues
A mediator is a trained individual who helps parties to setle Some mediators don’t
recommend the parties whether either o their terms are air aas opposed to lawyers), while
mediators o other models assess the airness o an agreement Lawyers can be mediators
too
d alternative adjudication/arbitration: this is similar to a court procedure where the
arbitrator listens to the acts and arguments to provide a solution They are cheaper and
in ormal and consumes less time
Methods o ADR:
1 Negotiation: lawyers usually try to fnd terms that can be accepted by both parties or
negotiate damages/compensation to be paid The negotiation o a solution is the eey and
each acts have their own negotiation methods and solutions Although, pre erred by many,
this process is unregulated and does not have a standard method to ollow However, there
are two basic theories to negotiation: a) win-lose approach and ab) problem-solving
approach
a) in win-lose approach acompetitive negotiation), there is usually an asset involved, such as
a house which is to be divided amongst the parties The negotiation concerns the amount o
division or the method o division The batle is about who gets more, rather than whether
it’s air or un air This approach doesn’t condone aggressive negotiation or exploitation o
one party Empirical evidence suggests that lawyers mostly use this approach to their cases
b) in problem-solving approach acooperative or principled negotiation), lawyers ocus on the
needs o the parties, as to what would be best or them, rather than who gets more the
problem with this approach is that it is ofen regarded as too idealistic Roger fsher and
William ury has distinguished three goals in problem-solving or principled negotiation: i) a
air/reasonable agreement; aii) an agreement sufcient in expression and operation; aiii)
agreement improving the relationship between parties
Bargaining power is important in negotiations and obviously those with stronger position
will have a beter chance o winning There ore, it is important to see where the parties will
stand i the case isn’t setled or is setled Hence, lawyers and their clients must be clear
with each other so that the lawyers can expect the outcome o the result
parties don’t have to go to court tt allows the parties to negotiate with or without a lawyer
There are ew orms o ADR such as:
a Negotiation between lawyers: lawyers can negotiate with each other to reach a
setlement while the clients will only be aseed to approve the setlement terms
b Negotiation between the parties: This is where parties deal with each other themselves
and lawyers are there only to advise on the terms the parties will agree on Parties can
negotiate without lawyers
c Mediation: Where clients will have a mediator instead o a lawyer to deal with the issues
A mediator is a trained individual who helps parties to setle Some mediators don’t
recommend the parties whether either o their terms are air aas opposed to lawyers), while
mediators o other models assess the airness o an agreement Lawyers can be mediators
too
d alternative adjudication/arbitration: this is similar to a court procedure where the
arbitrator listens to the acts and arguments to provide a solution They are cheaper and
in ormal and consumes less time
Methods o ADR:
1 Negotiation: lawyers usually try to fnd terms that can be accepted by both parties or
negotiate damages/compensation to be paid The negotiation o a solution is the eey and
each acts have their own negotiation methods and solutions Although, pre erred by many,
this process is unregulated and does not have a standard method to ollow However, there
are two basic theories to negotiation: a) win-lose approach and ab) problem-solving
approach
a) in win-lose approach acompetitive negotiation), there is usually an asset involved, such as
a house which is to be divided amongst the parties The negotiation concerns the amount o
division or the method o division The batle is about who gets more, rather than whether
it’s air or un air This approach doesn’t condone aggressive negotiation or exploitation o
one party Empirical evidence suggests that lawyers mostly use this approach to their cases
b) in problem-solving approach acooperative or principled negotiation), lawyers ocus on the
needs o the parties, as to what would be best or them, rather than who gets more the
problem with this approach is that it is ofen regarded as too idealistic Roger fsher and
William ury has distinguished three goals in problem-solving or principled negotiation: i) a
air/reasonable agreement; aii) an agreement sufcient in expression and operation; aiii)
agreement improving the relationship between parties
Bargaining power is important in negotiations and obviously those with stronger position
will have a beter chance o winning There ore, it is important to see where the parties will
stand i the case isn’t setled or is setled Hence, lawyers and their clients must be clear
with each other so that the lawyers can expect the outcome o the result
