Resolve Your Personal Injury Case Quickly & Inexpensively Outside of Court

Steven Joseph Palermo, Esq.'s Personal Injury Legal Blogs

Licensed for 19 years

Attorney in Hauppauge, NY

An Inside Tip to Resolving Your Personal Injury Case Quicker and Inexpensively

It’s called Alternative Dispute Resolutions (ADR), and we’d like our followers to know more about how “Arbitration” and “Mediation” (the two types of ADRs) can be better options, in particular cases, than bringing personal injury cases to trial.

Arbitration is an ADR to trial. When two parties at dispute cannot come close to an agreeable resolution, arbitration may present a better means of resolution as opposed to trial, and we’ll list exactly why.

“Binding” arbitration is when an unbiased third-party of authority meets with two at-dispute parties to come to a resolution outside of trial. The arbitrator acts somewhat like a judge and jury. They will listen to witness testimony, review evidence such as documents and photographs and make a final resolution. Since this type of arbitration is “binding”, the decision is final and both parties must abide by it. “Non-binding” arbitration does not require either side to abide to the arbitrator’s decision, but is moreover used as a guideline.

The Pros of Arbitration

  • Choice of “Judge” – Whereas in litigation, individuals cannot choose their judge/jury, in arbitration, both parties agree on an arbitrator, and this arbitrator may make the dispute less stressful for that reason
  • Quicker than Trial – Arbitration is a far faster means of resolution than trial for more than one reason – one specific reason is that there is no wait for a jury trial, which typically takes 9 months to a year due to backlog court systems already burdened with other cases
  • Less Expensive than Trial – It is far less expensive than a trial because the rules are much laxer and there is no need to hire experts (ie. accident reconstructionist, economists, doctors) – expert testimony can be presented to the arbitrator in the form of a document
  • Confidentiality – Generally, the arbitrator’s decision is non-public or confidential whereas a decision made through litigation may not be – some may prefer their case be kept confidential to a degree
  • The Cons of Arbitration

  • No Chance for Appeal – Once a decision has been made, even if you don’t agree with your award or believe it to be erroneous, there’s no way to appeal – this can be a pro (by making the process quicker) and a con (since the decision, even if one party disagrees, cannot be appealed)
  • Decision is Final – Your fate is in the hands of one person, as opposed to numerous people, who may actually make a decision in your favor
  • Mediation is another form of ADR. Mediation is a “non-binding” discussion wherein a mediator listens to each party’s position and makes recommendations as to how the case should be resolved. “Non-binding”, in other words, means that parties do not have to agree to the mediator’s recommendations. Mediation occurs mostly between two parties who understand that compromise is necessary to bring their case to a close. It’s the mediator’s job to help both parties come to an agreement, whereas in arbitration, the agreement is made by the arbitrator. A mediation is more of a negotiation whereas arbitration is more akin to a trial.

    Pros of Mediation

  • Cheaper and Quicker – In the understanding that time = money, mediation can be a much cheaper alternative to trial – many of the best personal injury lawyers are extremely busy, and convening schedules between them, scheduling depositions and trial dates can be difficult and mediation can dispense with these procedures and move the case to a quicker resolve
  • Confidentiality – While trials can be public, mediation can be confidential – for those of us who would prefer our cases be confidential, mediation can be a good ADR to trial
  • Control – Whereas in a trial, the judge or jury holds control over the verdict or settlement, in a mediation, the two parties are at liberty to come to a compromise or fully disagree with the mediator’s suggestion
  • Preservation of Relationship – In the case where the two parties had a relationship before the dispute occurred, a mediation is a chance for those two parties, who may understand each other’s circumstances, to maintain good standings between each other after the case is resolved
  • Expert Mediation – Mediators are trained to work in difficult scenarios to stay neutral and think of agreeable resolutions the two parties may never have thought of
  • Cons of Mediation

  • It Could Be a Waste – If the two parties cannot come to a mutual agreement, then they’ve wasted both time and money on the mediation
  • When Confidentiality Isn’t What You Want – Whereas in family matters, confidentiality is usually preferred, sometimes you may not want your ruling to be confidential – for example, if you’re in dispute with a party who has endangered you in ways they’ve continually endangered others, and if your ruling is self-satisfactory, you might want others to know about this so they don’t endure the same
  • Compromise – You will have to make some type of compromise, whether it’s the amount of money you want or any other aspect of a case, there is always some form of compromise
  • So, if you’re in a legal dispute with someone, you now know there is an alternative to court. You have options. These options could very well benefit you. It’s important you bring these up during a consultation with a personal injury lawyer. They may tell you whether or not an ADR is worth it. The best personal injury attorneys would be happy to explain these to you.

    ‹ Blogs Home