Client updates: active-matter responses typically within one business day

Disputes

Litigation vs ADR: Choosing the Right Path

10 min | 2026-02-05

Dispute pathway choice is strategic, not procedural housekeeping. The forum you select influences cost, timing, confidentiality, discovery scope, and enforcement options. Good decisions begin with objective clarity and realistic assumptions about counterpart behavior.

Start with Objective Fit

Define whether the core objective is urgent injunctive relief, monetary recovery, confidentiality, precedent value, or relationship preservation. Different forums optimize for different outcomes.

Without objective clarity, teams often default to the mechanism embedded in boilerplate even where it is strategically suboptimal.

Model Evidence and Cost Dynamics

Discovery scope varies significantly across forums. If your case depends on extensive third-party evidence, litigation may offer stronger tools. If evidence is largely internal, narrower procedures may reduce cost.

ADR is not automatically cheaper. Build realistic budget scenarios and include enforcement practicality, especially in cross-border contexts.

Use Mediation Deliberately

Mediation works best after sufficient fact development but before procedural entrenchment. Prepare with evidence architecture, settlement ranges, and clear internal authority.

Even partial mediation outcomes can narrow issues and reduce total dispute cost.

Key takeaways

  • Choose pathways based on objective fit, not defaults.
  • Match forum to urgency, evidence needs, and confidentiality.
  • Model realistic cost and timeline scenarios.
  • Use mediation strategically with serious preparation.

This article is informational. Forum selection should be based on contract terms, jurisdictional rules, and case-specific facts.