The inherent complexity of multi-party disputes that arise out of a typical construction project often leads to protracted litigation which is both costly and time consuming.  Tesser & Cohen has responded to the needs and concerns of our clients by advising that civil litigation should be a last resort.  We often attempt to resolve our clients' disputes without litigation by using various alternative dispute resolution procedures.

     Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) includes a wide variety of techniques that serve as alternatives to the traditional courtroom and judge.  While binding arbitration remains the most common form, other ADR techniques include mediation, mini-trials, summary jury trials, early neutral evaluations, and bar panels.

     ADR promises to be less costly than formal civil litigation and generally achieves a quicker disposition than is possible when proceeding through the courts.  For example, recent rule changes by the American Arbitration Association, Construction Industry Section, expedite and facilitate the resolution of many disputes of a lesser value.  The potential disadvantage of ADR is that there is less of an opportunity to investigate the facts of the case and the rights of appeal are limited.

     Identifying the most expedient course of action depends ultimately on the particular circumstances of each case.  Variables include the size of the claim in controversy, whether a public agency is involved, or whether a client is defending a matter rather than seeking damages.  Under any circumstances, clients should consider the various forms of ADR prior to commencing the process of formal civil litigation.  Tesser & Cohen informs its clients of those options and assists in making a professional and cost-effective determination as to which is best according to the set of facts governing each case. 

See Also
  Construction Law
  Commercial Law