Feeling caught in a maze of disagreements over a will or trust? The tension that arises from disputes around inheritance can leave you feeling like you’re walking on eggshells around people you love. You might even find yourself questioning family bonds and wondering how you got to this point. But here’s the good news: you have options.
If you’re searching for a resolution that doesn’t tear your family apart, or leave you lost in legal limbo, you’re in the right place. In this blog, we’ll outline methods of dispute resolution tailored to your unique circumstances. So, take a deep breath. There’s a path to a fair and balanced resolution, and Gaslowitz Frankel is here to help you find it.
Methods of Dispute Resolution: Pros and Cons
When it comes to law, there is often no perfect solution. Instead, there are calculated risks. In the context of will and trust dispute resolution, every method has its own set of pros and cons.
In general, most disputes are resolved in one of four ways:
- Mediation
- Arbitration
- Collaborative Law
- Litigation
Mediation Method of Dispute Resolution
Mediation is a structured process that utilizes a neutral third-party to facilitate a resolution. This individual is referred to as the mediator, and plays a crucial role in assisting those in conflict to negotiate and find a mutually acceptable resolution.
Pros:
- Control: Parties decide the resolution, not judges or juries, fostering more independence, and a mutually beneficial agreement.
- Cost-Effectiveness: Mediation is typically more affordable, requiring fewer resources and less time to come to a resolution.
Cons:
- No Guarantees: Mediation doesn’t guarantee a resolution. Sometimes, both parties just clash, and the conflict must be resolved another way.
- Time and Effort: Mediation can be time-consuming, and as stated above, could end without a resolution if parties’ fail to find common ground.
Arbitration Method of Dispute Resolution
Slightly different from mediation, is arbitration. This is when a dispute is formally submitted, to a neutral third-party to be resolved the way they see fit. Those in conflict each agree to adhere to the arbitrator’s final verdict as binding, and present their arguments with the arbitrator in private rather than going to court.
Pros:
- Fairness: Both parties select the arbitrator, ensuring a fair outcome, especially compared to traditional trials where jury or judge selection is beyond their control. They can choose an arbitrator with relevant expertise.
- Confidentiality: Because the dispute is handled privately rather than in court, arbitration is one of the most confidential ways to handle a dispute.
Cons:
- No Appeals: Arbitration decisions are final, meaning that there is no formal appeals process available if a party deems the outcome unfair.
- Inconsistent Standards: Arbitration lacks standardized procedures, which can potentially lead to biased arbitrators, especially in the case of mandatory arbitration contracts.
Collaborative Law Method of Dispute Resolution
Much like mediation, collaborative law still allows both parties to negotiate a resolution with each other, but rather than using a mediator, it relies on the discretion of both parties and their lawyers in order to come up with a final solution.
Pros:
- Control: Collaborative law empowers parties to better shape the dispute’s resolution, avoiding reliance on a judge’s or arbitrator’s decision.
- Improved Communication and Cooperation: Designed to encourage open dialogue, collaborative law facilitates better communication, enabling quicker and more amicable resolutions.
Cons:
- Mutual Agreement Required: Both parties must consent to participate; and can choose to withdraw at any time, which can quickly unravel the resolution process.
- Suitability for Complex Cases: Not suitable for all disputes, especially in cases with power imbalances or complex financial issues, where traditional litigation may be more appropriate.
Litigation Method of Dispute Resolution
Litigation is a more formal and structured method of dispute resolution. Basically, it means that you’re taking someone to court. It offers a higher level of certainty than some of the other options on this list, with both parties adhering to specific rules as they plan and strategize around their legal proceedings.
Pros:
- Clear Resolution: The Court/jury determines the winner of each case, providing an official and binding verdict that allows both parties to move forward without the worry that one side will change its mind.
- Fairness: Equitable procedures ensure both parties present their cases equally, preventing unfair advantage.
Cons:
- Cost and Time: Litigation can often be expensive and time-consuming, with complex cases sometimes taking months or even years to be resolved.
- Uncertain Outcomes: The results of litigation depend on the judge hearing your case, and their particular view of the law. This means that there is inherently a degree of uncertainty when entering into each dispute.
Related Article: Common Causes of Business Disputes Between Partners
How Gaslowitz Frankel Can Guide You Towards the Best Course of Action
Here at Gaslowitz Frankel, our aim is to find the most suitable method of dispute resolution for your unique situation. If the involved parties can handle things amicably, we’re happy to participate in an option such as collaborative law.
However, if litigation is what it takes to resolve the matter, rest assured that our team will fight for you and your preferred outcome. That’s the benefit of working with a decorated law firm such as ours – you have options, and more importantly, you have peace of mind.
If you are seeking help finding a resolution for a will and trust dispute, we’re here to help. Contact us by filling out our contact form for a free consultation about your case.
