Many forms of ADR “relax” the rules that are associated with the traditional legal system. For instance, the traditional litigation process have rules of evidence that are designed to only allow in reliable evidence. Things such as “hearsay” are not allowed, but they are not reliable. However, what the Court would consider “hearsay” is often allowed in forms of ADR. Why is that? Why shouldn’t forms of ADR have the same protections/requirements the traditional system has? Thoughts?

The ADR technique differs from the conventional legal system (Blake et al., 2016). The traditional litigation mainly conforms to a specific type of evidence that is considered reliable whereas ADR can resolute to use other types of evidence such as hearsay. The core premises of hearsay acts as a reflection of values used in supporting the conclusion that creates room for resolution. In arbitration, hearsay is quite important since its elements are controlled by rules established before carrying out the ADR. The latter supports hearsay since it promotes confidentiality in both parties. It is impossible to have the same protections in ADR, and the conventional legal systems since their policies are different therefore different procedures are used in solving cases.

References

Blake, S. H., Browne, J., & Sime, S. (2016). A practical approach to alternative dispute resolution. Oxford University Press.