Embracing ADR For Effective Dispute Resolution
Since Wisconsin enacted its alternative dispute resolution (ADR) statute in 1995, ADR has become integral to resolving countless types of civil disputes. As a trial lawyer focusing on insurance defense litigation and related cases for over 35 years, attorney John A. Kramer understands the significant advantages of ADR, and has long been a proponent of mediation and how it can be effectively used to resolve most legal disputes. Now an experienced mediator, attorney John A. Kramer and the mediation team at Kramer Shull Reeths LLP are committed to providing individuals, insurers and businesses with the guidance and support necessary to help them find solutions at mediation to resolve their legal conflicts.
What Are The Different Types Of ADR?
Mediation and arbitration are the most common types of ADR in Wisconsin:
- Mediation: A neutral third party, known as a mediator, helps two or more disputing parties settle their conflict outside of court. The mediator helps the parties objectively assess their positions, facilitates the exchange of settlement proposals and often makes recommendations but does not rule on issues or make decisions about settlement that are binding on the parties. In Wisconsin, mediations can either be voluntary or court-ordered.
- Arbitration: The parties present their case to a neutral third party, called an arbitrator, who then issues a decision based on the evidence. The arbitration process is less formal than a court or jury trial. In Wisconsin, most arbitrations are binding and the arbitrator’s final decision has minimal grounds for appeal. The parties may also choose nonbinding arbitration, where, if either party disputes the outcome, they can take their case to trial.
Learn more by calling us at 715-203-4534.
When Should You Choose Mediation Over Arbitration?
Engaging in some form of ADR is often a better way for parties to resolve their legal disputes than going to trial. Whether mediation or arbitration is the best ADR option depends on the specific circumstances of each case. If the parties wish to maintain control over the outcome of the dispute, maintain a cordial relationship with the other side, want a mediator’s neutral assessment of the case or their settlement options, or believe they can reach an amicable resolution to their disputes, mediation may be a more appropriate option.
Arbitration may be better if the parties believe they will not be able to work together to reach a settlement, mediation is unlikely to resolve the dispute, or the parties need a final and binding decision but do not want to wait for months or years to go to trial and incur the substantial expenses of a trial. Arbitration hearings are shorter and less formal than trials, and depending on the circumstances, an arbitrator can decide a matter based on written submissions and documents submitted.
How Can ADR Reduce Litigation Costs And Timelines?
ADR can reduce the time and expenses typically spent in litigation by relying on a more streamlined and less formal approach than a jury or court trial. It can help parties save money on attorneys fees, expert witness fees, deposition and discovery expenses, administrative fees, and court costs. ADR typically resolves disputes months or even years earlier than taking the case to trial.
Our goal is to help the parties find a settlement strategy that aligns with their needs and unique circumstances to provide a cost-effective way to resolve their dispute.
Prioritizing The Needs Of The Parties
Our team’s approach to mediation focuses on open communication and collaboration with the disputing parties, whether they are individuals, business owners or insurance claims representatives. During a mediation, attorney Kramer meets with the opposing parties separately and confidentially to understand the facts and legal issues at the heart of the dispute, and helps them assess their specific needs, concerns and risks.