Some extol the value of ADR to the point that some states, including Utah, have mandatory ADR laws. For instance, in Utah, mediation is mandatory for certain types of cases. One reason for this is that it is often successful. In fact, there are many benefits of using alternative dispute resolution techniques. That being said, our country has long held the belief that access to the courts via the legal system is a necessity. Do alternate dispute resolution techniques take away the advantages of the legal system? Why or why not? Thoughts?

The value of ADR is quite broad, and it is right to commend the value of Alternative Dispute Resolution (Blake et al., 2016). In places such as Utah, the process has contributed to successful results, especially in some instances. In that case, it is correct to state that the advantages attached to ADR techniques are numerous. In my perception, it is wrong to say that alternative dispute resolutions take away the merits of the legal system. Reason being that each of them has their distinct utilities, therefore, ADR cannot surpass the advantages found in legal system processes. The legal system has its functions that an ADR cannot fulfill therefore its benefits cannot be affected by this type of resolution.

References

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