Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), a common technique parties can use to settle disputes with the help of a third party, offers several unique benefits over traditional litigation. It is typically more cost-effective, confidential and generally a preferred method to resolving disputes. As a result, counsel and their clients often view ADR as a no-brainer. But the once simple decision to engage in ADR is now complicated by whether to proceed in-person, virtually or with a hybrid approach.
Now that remote work is omnipresent, many ADR organizations and independent neutrals offer to conduct ADR proceedings virtually as a convenience to all participants. Further, given today's unsettled economic environment and the cost-cutting that many clients are imposing in response, virtual ADR proceedings might seem particularly attractive given the potential savings compared to in-person proceedings.
However, while virtual ADR may seem more convenient and cost-effective than in-person proceedings, it does not mean that virtual ADR is the right choice for every dispute. In this article, published in Reuters Legal and Westlaw Today, Eric Larson addresses some key considerations for clients and their counsel as they weigh the decision between virtual and in-person ADR.
Read the full article here.