If you are involved in a dispute, litigation may only hinder the chances of finding a successful resolution to your legal matter. Tensions are often high, as going to court produces win-lose scenarios that can create animosity between the parties.
An alternative dispute resolution (ADR) method is a more effective option in many cases. Through mediation, mini-trials, arbitration and other forms of ADR, disputing parties have more control over the final outcome, often resulting in solutions that benefit both sides. Many parties find they can work together after the issue is resolved.
Resolving Disputes Outside of Litigation
At Eastlund Hutchinson we offer mediation and other alternative dispute resolution services to people involved in:
Attorneys Joseph R. Cade and Thomas F. Hutchinson are our certified mediators and arbitrators. They have helped many clients develop creative solutions to their legal needs without the time, cost and animosity of court.
Choosing a Method of ADR That Works Best for You
The method of alternative dispute resolution used depends on your case and specific needs. A couple getting a divorce may benefit from divorce mediation, while parties in a business dispute may require a more formal ADR method. Some disputes require a combination of methods to reach a final resolution. An experienced attorney at our firm can advise on the best option for you.
We offer services in the following types of ADR:
Arbitration: Each party presents their case to a chosen arbitrator who then makes a decision on the legal issue. The decision may be binding or non-binding.
Early neutral evaluation: After a case is filed, lawyers present their dispute to a neutral third party who evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the case. Settlement may follow.
Med-Arb: The parties initially attempt to mediate an issue, but if resolution isn’t possible, an arbitrator will step in to make a decision.
Private judging: Parties retain a retired judge to listen to their case and make a binding decision on the legal matter.
Mediation: A third-party neutral facilitates discussion between the parties, aiding them in understanding the facts and pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the decisions. The parties have the final say in the outcome.
Mini-trial: Legal counsel for both sides presents a “best case” scenario to a small panel of a decision maker and neutral third party. The parties may use the opinion of the decision makers to guide their settlement negotiations.
Moderated settlement conference: Both parties present their side of the case to a panel of neutral attorneys. The panel then makes a non-binding decision that serves as the basis for the final outcome.
Neutral fact finding: The parties or court selects a neutral expert to investigate the facts of the legal issue and give a non-binding opinion on the matter. This works best for complex disputes involving scientific, technological or business matters.
Summary jury trial: Legal counsel presents their case to a judge and mock jury. The judge uses the “jury’s” opinion to build a basis for settlement.