4 Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Understand alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods.
- Learn the benefits and drawbacks of different methods of dispute resolution.
Imagine that someone has a legal claim against a supplier, employer, or a business where he or she is a customer. What will happen? They probably don’t want to immediately initiate litigation because litigation is very expensive and time consuming. Besides, they may want to continue doing business with the supplier, employer, or business. Perhaps the matter is of a private nature, and they do not want to engage in a public process to determine the outcome. They would like the dispute to be resolved, but do not want to engage in a public, time-consuming, expensive process like litigation to do it.
A common method of dispute resolution that avoids many of the challenges associated with litigation is alternative dispute resolution. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) encompasses many different methods of resolving disputes outside of the judicial process. Some ADR methods vest power to resolve the dispute in a neutral third party, while other strategies vest that power in the parties themselves.
Figure 4.1 Alternative Dispute Resolution Continuum
The most common methods of ADR are negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. ADR is often used to resolve disputes among businesses, employers and employees, and businesses and consumers.
ADR methods are used outside of the courtroom, but participation in ADR has important legal consequences. For instance, parties that have agreed by contract to be subject to binding arbitration give up their constitutional right to go to court. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is a federal statute that requires parties to participate in arbitration when they have agreed by contract to do so, even in state court matters. The FAA preempts state power to create a judicial forum for disputes arising under contracts with mandatory arbitration clauses. The FAA encompasses transactions within the broadest permissible exercise of congressional power under the Commerce Clause in the US Constitution. This means that the FAA requires mandatory arbitration clauses to be enforceable for virtually any transaction involving interstate commerce, which is very broadly construed. This is an example of federal preemption exercised through the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution.
Imagine that Han is a tent manufacturer. Han’s supplier of tent fabric routinely supplies him with appropriate water-resistant fabric to construct tents, so that he can make and sell them. After many years of a good working relationship, Han’s fabric supplier delivered nonconforming goods. Specifically, the fabric delivered was not water-resistant, despite the need for water-resistant fabric to make tents. However, when Han notified the supplier of the problem, the supplier denied that the fabric was nonconforming to his order. Han refused to pay for the goods. The fabric supplier insisted on payment before future delivery of any additional fabric. Without water-resistant fabric, Han cannot continue to make tents.
This is an example of a business to business dispute. Despite the problem, Han wants to continue working with this supplier, since they have a good, long-standing relationship. This problem seems to be a “hiccup” in the regular business relationship so they want to resolve this dispute quickly and without hard feelings. It is very unlikely that Han will immediately hire an attorney to file a formal complaint against his supplier. However, that does not change the fact that there is a dispute that needs to be resolved.
One of the first strategies that Han and his supplier are likely to use is negotiation. Negotiation is a method of alternative dispute resolution in which the parties retain power to resolve their dispute. No outside party is vested with decision-making power. Negotiation requires the parties to define the conflict and agree to an outcome. Often, this can take the form of a compromise. Note that a compromise does not mean that anyone “loses.” If both parties are satisfied with the result of the negotiation and the business relationship can continue moving forward, then both parties will likely consider the settlement a “win.”
Benefits to negotiation as a method of ADR include its potential for a speedy resolution, the inexpensive nature of participation, and the fact that parties participate voluntarily. Drawbacks include the fact that there are no set rules, and either party may bargain badly or even unethically. In a negotiation, there is no neutral third party to ensure that rules are followed, that the negotiation strategy is fair, or that the overall outcome is sound. Moreover, any party can walk away whenever it wishes. There is no guarantee of resolution through this method. The result may not be “win-win” or “win-lose,” but no resolution at all.
In addition, the parties may not have equal bargaining power. If Han’s business and the supplier are both dependent on each other for roughly equal portions of their businesses, then they are most likely relatively equal with respect to bargaining power. However, if Han has a small business but his supplier has a large business, then negotiation is potentially unbalanced, since one party has a much more powerful bargaining position than the other. For example, if Han needs that particular type of fabric, which is only available from one supplier. But the supplier does not need Han’s business because he do not provide a significant amount of its profit. This would be an example of unequal bargaining power.
Mediation is a method of ADR in which parties work to form a mutually acceptable agreement to resolve their dispute with the help of a neutral third party. Like negotiation, parties in mediation do not vest authority in a third party to decide the dispute. Instead, this authority remains with the parties themselves, who are free to end mediation if it is not working. Often, when parties end mediation, they pursue another form of ADR, such as arbitration, or they choose to litigate their claims in court. Like negotiation, mediation seeks a “win-win” outcome for the parties involved. Additionally, mediation is confidential, which may be attractive to people who wish to avoid the public nature of litigation. Discussions during a mediation are not admissible as evidence if the parties proceed to litigation. This encourages parties to be open with each other when trying to resolve their dispute. Finally, the mediation process is usually much faster than litigation, and the associated costs can be substantially less.
Unlike negotiation, a third party is involved in mediation. Indeed, a neutral mediator is crucial to the mediation process. Mediators act as a go-between for the parties, seeking to facilitate the agreement. Mediators do not provide advice on the subject matter of the dispute. Mediators might not possess any subject-matter expertise concerning the nature of the dispute. The value of mediators, however, is their training and experience in conflict resolution, which they use to facilitate an agreement between the parties.
|Advantages of Mediation||Drawbacks of Mediation|
Parties often enter into a legally binding contract that embodies the terms of the resolution immediately after a successful mediation. Therefore, the terms of the mediation can become binding if they are reduced to a contract.
Mediation is often required by courts as part of the litigation process. In an effort to reduce the court’s docket and encourage the parties to settle their own disputes, parties to lawsuits often must mediate their disputes after discovery and before trial. If the parties cannot settle their dispute with the help of a mediator, the case will proceed to trial before a judge or jury who will determine the outcome of the case.
Arbitration is a method of ADR in which parties vest authority in a neutral third-party decision maker to hear their case and issue a decision, which is called an arbitration award.
An arbitrator presides over arbitration proceedings. Arbitrators are neutral decision makers who are often experts in the law and subject matter at issue in the dispute. Arbitrators act like judges during trials. For instance, they determine which evidence can be introduced, hear the parties’ cases, and issue decisions. They may be certified by the state in which they arbitrate, and they may arbitrate only certain types of claims. For instance, the Better Business Bureau trains its own arbitrators to hear common complaints between businesses and consumers (B2C). However, their decisions do not form binding precedent like appellate court decisions.
Participation in the arbitration proceeding is sometimes mandatory. Parties must arbitrate if they signed a contract requiring mandatory arbitration for that type of dispute. Arbitration is also mandatory when state law requires it.
Voluntary arbitration is frequently used in business disputes. Sometimes parties simply agree that they do not want to litigate a dispute because they believe that the benefits of arbitration outweigh the costs of litigation, so they choose arbitration in hopes of a speedy and relatively inexpensive outcome.
In binding arbitration, the arbitration award is final. Therefore, appealing the merits of a binding arbitration award to court is not available. An arbitration award may be converted to a judgment by the court, thereby creating the legal mechanism through which the judgment can be collected. This process is called confirmation.
Although courts review arbitration awards, their review is very limited and all doubts are resolved in favor of the validity of the award. Courts review whether (1) the arbitration award covered matters beyond the issues submitted; (2) the arbitrator failed to apply the law correctly; and (3) fraud occurred. Courts do not review the merits of the award.
Like any other form of dispute resolution, arbitration has certain benefits and drawbacks. Arbitration is an adversarial process like a trial, and it will produce a “winner” and a “loser.” Arbitration is more formal than negotiation and mediation and, in many ways, it resembles a trial. Parties present their cases to the arbitrator by introducing evidence. After both sides have presented their cases, the arbitrator issues an arbitration award.
The rules of procedure during arbitration are often less formal or less restrictive on the presentation of evidence than in litigation. Arbitrators decide which evidence to allow, and they are not required to follow precedents or to provide their reasoning in the final award. In short, arbitration adheres to rules, but those rules are not the same as the rules for litigation.
Arbitration can be more expensive than negotiation or mediation, but it is often less expensive than litigation. Parties must pay the costs of the arbitrator, and they often hire attorneys to represent them. Additionally, in mandatory arbitration clause cases, the arbitration may be required to take place far from one of the parties. This means that a party may have to pay travel costs during the arbitration proceeding. Arbitration is also faster than litigation.
A common issue is whether mandatory arbitration is fair in certain circumstances. It’s easy to imagine that arbitration is fair when both parties are equally situated. For example, business to business (B2B) arbitration is often perceived as fair, especially if businesses are roughly the same size or have roughly equal bargaining power. This is because they will be able to devote approximately the same amount of resources to resolve the dispute, and they both understand the issues involved.
However, issues of fairness often arise in business to employee (B2E) and business to consumer (B2C) disputes, particularly where parties with unequal bargaining power have entered into a contract that contains a mandatory arbitration clause. In such cases, the weaker party has no real negotiating power to modify or to delete the mandatory arbitration clause, so that party is required to agree to such a clause if it wants to engage in certain types of transactions. In B2E contexts, unequal bargaining power alone is insufficient to hold arbitration agreements unenforceable.
In B2C cases, different issues of fairness exist. As noted previously, when the parties possess unequal power, these issues can be magnified. Consumers tend to fare better in litigation than in arbitration. Incentives exist to favor businesses over consumers in the arbitration process, including the lack of appeal rights to the courts, the limits on consumers’ remedies, prohibitions against class-action suits, limitations on access to jury trials, limitations on abilities to collect evidence, and greater out-of-pocket expenses.
Not all binding arbitration clauses have been upheld by courts in B2C cases. The FAA does not prevent the courts from applying state law, including the unconscionability of contract terms. In other words, if the terms of the contract make it unreasonable to enforce the arbitration provision, then a party may still bring claims to court for resolution.
Similarly, arbitration agreements may be rescinded on the same grounds as other contracts. Fraud, mutual mistake, and lack of capacity are grounds for voiding arbitration contracts. Revocation is also possible in the event of death or bankruptcy of one of the parties, as well as destruction of the subject matter of the underlying contract.
4.5 Concluding Thoughts
ADR is the body of dispute-resolution methods outside of the litigation process. ADR is often faster, less expensive, and more private than litigation. For this reason, ADR may be the preferred dispute resolution method, particularly when an ongoing relationship between parties is desired. Common methods of dispute resolution are negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. Mandatory arbitration clauses are common in contracts, and such clauses are usually enforceable against the parties even if they wish to litigate their claims.