{2:06 minutes to read} I recently did a presentation at the Annual Conference of the New York State Dispute Resolution Association. As part of the presentation, I proposed that ADR should not stand for “Alternative” Dispute Resolution; rather, it should be considered “Appropriate” Dispute Resolution, which is a concept I first heard from a former colleague, the late Peter Glassman.
This is not simply a different way to phrase what mediators do; it is a shift in the way we view what we do! Mediation is not an alternative way to handle a dispute; it is the first way a dispute should be handled.
The analogy I made was to the way countries handle conflict. In the past, wars were fought to settle boundary disputes, personal affronts, and religious differences. Disputes between countries were handled on the battlefield.
Hopefully, the world has become more civilized and more afraid of the nuclear option so that we attempt a diplomatic resolution before we go to battle. But isn’t that what litigation is, really; a battle? The only difference is that the “battle” is fought in court rather than on the field.
Whether it is between spouses in a divorce, companies over a contract, or individuals claiming injury as a result of the negligence of another, the court system is based on an adversarial model. We go to court to do battle with those who have harmed us or have not lived up to their obligation to us.
Isn’t it time that we, as a society, treat litigation and the court system as the last resort when we have a dispute with someone? And doesn’t that make the court system the “alternative” dispute resolution system?
Share with Friends:
Need More Information?
To schedule a free phone or video consultation, complete and submit the form below, email us at [email protected], or call 518-529-5200.
