Individuals and companies facing difficult legal disputes have had only unattractive alternatives to choose from in the past. But now a much better option is available. It is called Comprehensive Adjudication.
Until recently, ongoing legal disputes could only be resolved via public court litigation or two forms of alternative dispute resolution – arbitration or mediation. All of those options can be used to put an end to a dispute, but all are inefficient and extremely expensive. The source of all the unnecessary cost and inefficiency is their reliance on separate legal counsel for each of the parties performing an extraordinary amount of duplicative work that does not swiftly deliver a proper outcome.
Litigation in Public Court
Lawsuits require the filing of a formal complaint, a responsive pleading and multiple pretrial briefs. Each party retains separate counsel to research the same legal authorities, subpoena and review the same evidence and examine the same witnesses in lengthy pretrial “discovery” proceedings. The separate lawyers for each party then prepare that same legal authority, evidence, and witness testimony for presentation to a judge in multiple pretrial motions. Often those motions are focused only on efforts to obtain a variety of procedural advantages over opposing counsel and have little to do with the substance of the dispute. The same law, evidence and witness testimony is then presented again several years later at trial. And it is presented again years later on appeal. And, after years of extraordinary cost, there is a significant risk that a judge lacking experience in the applicable field of law, or a jury that is untrained in legal analysis of any kind, will improperly decide the case. Hence, public court litigation requires:
- Attorney’s fees that are far too high
- Many years before obtaining a final outcome
- An unacceptable risk of an unjust decision
Often the cost of pursuing a legally proper outcome approaches, or exceeds, the benefit of obtaining it. Parties are forced to settle disputes because the inefficiency of the public court system’s reliance on professional legal adversaries makes it economically impractical to utilize the process for dispute resolution. That is not justice.
Comprehensive Adjudication
Utilizing Comprehensive Adjudication solves all the principal problems with litigation in public court. The parties jointly interview experts in the relevant legal specialty and jointly select one to be their neutral “Adjudicator.” The Adjudicator zealously seeks the legal authorities and evidence supporting the position of the claimant and just as zealously seeks the legal authorities and evidence supporting the position of the defendant. The Adjudicator, then swiftly provides the parties with an enforceable decision resolving all issues arising from the dispute.
Because the parties split the cost of a single neutral Adjudicator to do the expensive investigative work, instead of hiring separate counsel to largely duplicate one another’s work, the parties automatically cut their legal costs in half. And because the “trial” begins immediately with the Adjudicator’s collection of relevant evidence and examination of witnesses, the parties receive an enforceable decision in months instead of the many years required for pretrial motions and, ultimately, a trial in a public court. Moreover, by jointly interviewing and selecting an Adjudicator with expertise in the relevant field of law and experience in examining witnesses and analyzing the evidence, the parties minimize the chances of an unjustly decided outcome.
Arbitration
Traditional arbitration is used when there is an agreement by the parties to utilize private arbitrators to decide the dispute instead of a public court judge or jury. Like litigation in court, arbitration suffers from an undue reliance of each party paying to have separate legal counsel research the same legal authorities, review the same evidence and examine the same witnesses at the same arbitration hearing. And the parties also must pay for expensive private arbitrators. Prehearing discovery of evidence, depositions and appeals are not permitted or are severely restricted. Arbitrators are permitted to rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence in making their decision.
Mediation
In a mediation, the parties attempt to negotiate a settlement of their dispute with the assistance of a neutral mediator who attempts to facilitate the negotiations. Mediations do not necessarily result in a resolution of the dispute because a successful settlement negotiation requires each party to make substantial compromises, including the party that deserves to win. A mediation during a Comprehensive Adjudication ensures that any compromise will be based upon the merits of the dispute and not the economic infeasibility of obtaining a proper outcome via an enforceable decision.