Did you know that most civil lawsuits settle without a trial? And did you know that there are a number of ways to resolve civil disputes without having to sue somebody? These alternatives to a lawsuit are known as alternative dispute resolution (also called ADR).

In ADR, trained, impartial persons decide disputes or help parties decide disputes themselves. These persons are called neutrals. In mediation, for example, the neutral is the mediator. Neutrals normally are chosen by the disputing parties or by the court. Neutrals can help parties resolve disputes without having to go to court.

Mediation is one alternative dispute resolution method. Mediation is an informal and non-adversarial process. The referring court retains jurisdiction of the case during the mediation process.

For a complete explanation about the costs of mediation, the selection of mediators, the mediation process, and other issues about mediation, please read the Indiana Rules for Alternative Dispute Resolution.

If you have read this page and would like more information on mediators, you can visit the Indiana Commission for Continuing Legal Education's Directory of Registered Mediators on the web. The Indiana Self-Service Legal Center makes no warranties as to the accuracy or quality of these web site links.

Advantages of ADR | Disadvantages of ADR

Advantages of ADR

• ADR can be speedier. A dispute can often be resolved in a matter of months, even weeks, through ADR, while a lawsuit can take years.
• ADR can save money. Court costs, attorney fees, and expert witness fees can be saved.
• ADR can permit more participation. With ADR, the parties may have more chances to tell their side of the story than in court and may have more control over the outcome.
• ADR can be flexible. The parties can choose the ADR process that's best for them.
• ADR can be cooperative. In mediation, for example, the parties having a dispute may work together with the neutral to resolve the dispute and agree to a remedy that makes sense to them, rather than work against each other.
• ADR can reduce stress. There are fewer, if any, court appearances. And because ADR can be speedier, cheaper, and can create an atmosphere in which the parties are normally cooperative, ADR is easier on the nerves. The parties don't have a lawsuit hanging over their heads. For all the above reasons, many people have reported a high degree of satisfaction with ADR.

Because of these advantages, many parties choose ADR to resolve a dispute instead of filing a lawsuit. Even when a lawsuit has been filed, ADR can be used before the parties' positions harden and the lawsuit becomes costly. ADR has been used to resolve disputes even after a trial, when the result is appealed.

Disadvantages of ADR

• ADR may not be suitable for every dispute.
• If ADR is binding, the parties normally give up most court protections, including a decision by a judge or jury under formal rules of evidence and procedure and review for legal error by an appellate court.
• There generally is less opportunity to find out about the other side's case with ADR than with litigation. ADR may not be effective if it takes place before the parties have sufficient information to resolve the dispute.
• The neutral may charge a fee for his or her services.
• If a dispute is not resolved through ADR, the parties may have to put time and money into both ADR and a lawsuit.
• Lawsuits must be brought within specified periods of time, known as statutes of limitations. Parties must be careful not to let a statute of limitations run out while a dispute is in an ADR process.