There is now increasing attention devoted to an emerging form of alternative dispute resolution called Comprehensive Adjudication. It provides the parties to a legal dispute with a more expertly decided, enforceable decision in less than half the time, and at less than half the cost, of conventional litigation. And the total cost can be capped at the outset, split by the parties, and paid in predictable monthly installments. It is a very attractive option for all parties.
How Is a Legal Dispute Resolution Achieved Via Comprehensive Adjudication?
Litigation in the public court system (or in arbitration) requires all parties to retain separate legal counsel to advocate on their behalf. The attorneys for all parties exhaustively review the same evidence, examine the same witnesses under oath and research the same legal precedents. They engage in seemingly endless evidentiary discovery battles, procedural disputes and motion practice in pretrial proceedings and then present the same law and evidence at trial, merely emphasizing different aspects of the evidence in their arguments. Comprehensive Adjudication eliminates all that duplication and inefficiency. Instead of each party retaining separate attorneys to essentially perform the same work, the parties jointly interview, select and split the cost of a single, neutral Adjudicator to zealously investigate the relevant law and facts that would support the legal positions of all parties. After thoroughly scouring the evidence and cross-examining all the witnesses, the Adjudicator provides the parties with an enforceable, written decision that expertly resolves the dispute.
The cost and delay required to investigate and decide the dispute is dramatically reduced because the cost of the single, neutral Adjudicator is divided by the parties and the inefficient, partisan bickering of separate counsel for each party is eliminated. The risk of an unjust result is dramatically reduced because the parties jointly interview and select the neutral Adjudicator who will perform all the work. The parties can jointly select their Adjudicator based upon specific experience in the field of law that is relevant to the dispute and demonstrated skills in analyzing evidence and examining witnesses. Adjudicator candidates can be jointly screened by the parties in advance for integrity, diligence, neutrality, and intelligence.
Strategic Considerations in Proposing a Comprehensive Adjudication Case Resolution
No party that earnestly believes in the merits of its legal position would turn down the opportunity to obtain the legal outcome it deserves in a fraction of the time and cost required for conventional litigation. That logic makes it strategically wise for a party to propose Comprehensive Adjudication to its legal adversary as a means of resolving the dispute because the proposing party receives a valuable benefit regardless of whether the proposal is accepted or rejected. If everyone agrees to Comprehensive Adjudication, all parties benefit from the dramatic savings in time and legal cost. But if the proposal is turned down, the rejecting party reveals its lack of confidence in its legal position and the proposing party learns that it simply needs to power through the cost and delay of conventional litigation to get the result it desires.
How to Respond to a Request to Utilize Comprehensive Adjudication
The only strategically smart response is “yes.” Only parties that believe they are going to lose would turn down a chance to decide the dispute faster and less expensively. That is not a message you want to convey to your adversary.
If you have a weak legal position, but a better ability to absorb high legal costs, you can increase the pressure on your adversary to compromise by driving up everyone’s expenses through the inefficiency of the public court litigation. But rejecting Comprehensive Adjudication only conveys your lack of confidence to the opposing party. The opposition will know they are likely to win, no matter what forum is utilized to decide the dispute. If you think you are likely to lose, it would be strategically smarter to project confidence by accepting the proposal to utilize Comprehensive Adjudication, but insist on first engaging in a mediation that will allow you to quickly settle the dispute and move on.