There are four basic types of alternative dispute resolution, depending on how involved the neutral party is with the disputing parties. The essential part about ADR is that the disputing parties are directly involved in the resolution. If a judge or attorney takes the negotiations out of the parties’ hands, it becomes litigation again.
Mediation
In mediation, a neutral facilitator or a team of facilitators works with the parties to reach an agreement. Mediators often work in small claims courts and community agencies to resolve neighborhood conflicts. The goal of mediation is to assist the parties in creating their own solution to the problem.
For example, in a neighborhood fence dispute, the parties might agree to split the cost of a land survey to determine the property line before building a new fence.
Mediation can be binding if the parties agree to sign a mediation agreement and file it with the court.
Arbitration
Arbitration is more formal than mediation. It may involve an administrative law judge (ALJ) who hears evidence and facts presented by both sides and issues a binding decision.
Arbitration is often used by businesses in contract disputes and other minor issues that don’t require full litigation. Arbitration is less adversarial than court because the rules of evidence are relaxed. Parties may present evidence that would be barred in court, and the ALJ can ask both sides questions about their position.
Arbitration is binding on both parties, but in some states, it may be subject to appeal to the court.
Mediation/Arbitration (Hybrid)
Parties can agree to a hybrid approach, in which mediation is used first and arbitration is pursued if the parties cannot reach an amicable solution. Parties may also want the ALJ to sign off on their decision, in contract or business situations where the agreement may be appended to a formal contract or other document.
Conciliation
This method is becoming popular in family law courts. Conciliation involves the parties and their attorneys meeting in a semi-formal setting. The parties agree to abide by court rules of discovery and evidence, but not to bring their disagreements before a judge for a hearing.
For instance, if two parties in a divorce are in the discovery phase and one party requests additional time to produce documents, the court would set a hearing and let a judge decide whether it was reasonable. In conciliation, the attorneys agree among themselves on how much time to allow for the production.
Conciliation keeps the case moving forward without pausing for court scheduling. In contentious family law cases, this can prevent matters from getting bogged down in a busy court docket.