英语论文网

> ADR is unlikely to succeed in resolving a matter if one party is irrational or has unrealistic expectations. Take the example of a mediation in which one party announced that she was entitled to millions of dollars because God had told her so in a dream. She was obviously not in a compromise frame of mind. Also, cases in which one party feels intimidated or overwhelmed by the other party may not be suited for ADR, although this imbalance can sometimes be corrected if the vulnerable party is properly counselled by its attorney.
When one side is engaged in litigation with the intention of bleeding the other side dry or for some other malicious reason, or if the parties are already involved in an especially acrimonious dispute, ADR may just delay the proceedings and add another step to an already burdensome process.

D. The Attorneys Are Not Right for ADR.
Just as uncooperative parties are ill-suited to informal dispute resolution, hostile or incompatible attorneys can sabotage ADR efforts. The Deloitte & Touche survey revealed that thirty percent of those involved in failed ADR attempts identified interpersonal conflicts between lawyers as the reason for the failure. The same negative attitudes that interfere with a party's resolution ability can infect a lawyer's attitude, making ADR efforts difficult if not impossible. In many cases, too, an unreasonable lawyer leads to an unreasonable client.

IV. FORMULATING A RESOLUTION STRATEGY
Turning again to the words of Warren Burger, the former Supreme Court Chief Justice once noted:
“The obligation of [the legal] profession is to serve as healers of human conflicts. . . . [We] should provide mechanisms that can produce an acceptable result in the shortest possible time, with the least possible expense and with a minimum of stress on the participants. That is what justice is all about. Our litigation system is too costly, too painful, too destructive, too inefficient for a civilized people.”
One of the first things a good lawyer does when confronted with a complex case is to develop a resolution strategy. In order to do so, counsel must ask himself or herself two important questions:
. what are my client's objectives?

. what is the best process to achieve those objectives?

There are as many styles of ADR as there are business problems. Choosing the best ADR method for a particular case involves identifying the barriers to resolution, and determining what method or combination of methods will best break down those barriers. Judy Julian , an experienced litigator and ADR professional, warns that many attorneys attempt to fit their cases into neat little boxes, locking themselves into one of the more traditional ADR methods like mediation or arbitration, without failing to consider how a more creative approach might be best suited to a particular case.
The beauty of ADR is its ever-evolving nature, and the inherent quality that allows willing participants to fashion a methodology suited to their individual needs in each particular case. The best approach may be to choose individual facets of the various ADR methods and combine them into a resolution strategy tailor-made for breaking down the barriers to agreement in a specific dispute. If both sides are sure they will win, for instance, an early neutral evaluation, a mini-trial or a private judge may give them a more realistic s本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。