Alternative Dispute Resolution
Overview
The federal government encourages Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") to resolve a wide variety of complex disputes, and often ADR is legally mandated. Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. routinely employs the full range of ADR techniques to manage effectively our clients' litigation dockets and reduce litigation costs.
Full Description
Congress, the States, the federal judiciary and the President have all taken steps to promote the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR"). Beveridge & Diamond routinely employs the full range of ADR techniques to manage effectively our clients' litigation dockets and reduce litigation costs.
The primary advantage of ADR is that it allows parties to select a process tailored to their needs and to choose a mediator or, in the case of arbitration, a "judge." This can increase the speed, accuracy and fairness of outcomes to the advantage of our clients. Our lawyers have substantial experience in all forms of ADR and on both plaintiff's and defendant's sides of the table. Several of our most experienced lawyers also serve as mediators/arbitrators for private ADR service providers and for court-sanctioned or ordered mediation panels. Cases in which we have been engaged include highly complex civil matters involving business partnerships, breach of contract, intellectual property, federal and state government disputes, environment, products liability, toxic torts, personal injury, insurance disputes, and the full range of employment issues. In assisting our clients, we offer insights from the perspective of the neutral ADR mediator or arbitrator, as well as the parties and advocates involved in ADR proceedings. Our litigators and experienced mediators and arbitrators provide our clients practical and proven advice on how to best use ADR to resolve even the most complex disputes, and to take account of both the possibilities and limitations of ADR in the context of a particular dispute.
We use ADR to resolve some of our clients' most complicated and high-profile matters. For example:
- The division of liability at many Superfund sites often is performed through a neutral mediator or allocator. We created the ADR procedures implemented at many sites and have used those procedures to resolve disputes over large sums for clients that would have otherwise had to engage in expensive and risky cost recovery litigation.
- We helped create a novel ADR process to resolve a dispute with the federal government over responsibility for a $100 million cleanup, which included a mini-trial before two scientific neutrals who rendered an opinion on the potential source of contamination at the Site.
- We have negotiated abbreviated dispute resolution processes, such as a recent non-binding mini-trial procedure in a products liability case that averted multiple filings in state courts.
- We have been lead counsel in numerous matters under a statutorily-mandated binding arbitration provision in federal law governing the registration of agricultural crop protection products,
- We have tried formal arbitration matters involving National Park Service concession contracts.
- We have tried construction arbitration matters involving allegations of defective design, delay and lost profits.
- We have effectively used mediation in a toxic tort case arising out of environmental activities.
Environmental
Land Use
Litigation
Pro Bono
- Robert Brager
(Baltimore) - John N. Hanson
(Washington) - John H. Kazanjian
(New York) - Brian C. Levey
(Boston) - Gary J. Smith
(San Francisco)
