# What are alternative legal procedures to going to court?
Court proceedings represent a significant investment of time, money, and emotional energy. For many disputes, litigation creates an adversarial environment that can permanently damage relationships and drain resources without guaranteeing a satisfactory outcome. The modern legal landscape offers numerous alternatives that can resolve conflicts more efficiently, cost-effectively, and with outcomes tailored to your specific circumstances. Understanding these alternative procedures empowers you to make informed decisions about how to address legal challenges, whether they involve commercial contracts, family matters, housing disputes, or consumer complaints.
The UK legal system increasingly encourages parties to explore resolution methods outside traditional courtrooms. Civil Procedure Rules now mandate consideration of alternative approaches before litigation commences. This shift reflects a growing recognition that formal court proceedings should serve as a last resort rather than a first response. The alternatives available range from informal negotiations to structured processes with legally binding outcomes, each offering distinct advantages depending on the nature of your dispute and your desired resolution.
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR): mediation, arbitration, and conciliation frameworks
Alternative Dispute Resolution encompasses a spectrum of processes designed to settle disputes without resorting to formal litigation. These frameworks share a common objective: facilitating resolution through structured dialogue, expert intervention, or independent adjudication. ADR methods have evolved considerably over recent decades, becoming increasingly sophisticated and specialised to address different types of conflicts. The primary categories—mediation, arbitration, and conciliation—each operate according to distinct principles and produce different types of outcomes.
The fundamental distinction between these approaches lies in the role of the third party involved and the nature of the outcome they produce. Mediation employs a neutral facilitator who guides parties toward their own mutually acceptable solution. Arbitration involves an independent arbitrator who hears evidence and renders a binding decision, functioning similarly to a judge but outside the court system. Conciliation combines elements of both, with the conciliator taking a more active role in proposing solutions whilst still allowing parties to retain ultimate control over the outcome.
Recent statistics from the Civil Mediation Council indicate that approximately 70-80% of mediated disputes result in settlement, with parties reporting high satisfaction levels compared to traditional litigation outcomes. The cost savings can be substantial—mediation typically costs between £1,000 and £5,000 for a full-day session, whilst court proceedings for similar disputes might incur legal costs exceeding £25,000. Beyond financial considerations, ADR processes generally conclude within weeks or months rather than the years often required for complex litigation.
Facilitative mediation through ACAS and civil mediation council accredited mediators
Facilitative mediation represents the most commonly employed ADR approach in the UK. This process centres on a trained mediator who creates a structured environment for parties to explore their interests, identify common ground, and develop creative solutions. Unlike evaluative mediation, facilitative mediators refrain from offering opinions about the merits of each party’s position or predicting likely court outcomes. Instead, they employ sophisticated communication techniques to help parties understand each other’s perspectives and work collaboratively toward resolution.
The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) provides free mediation services for workplace disputes, handling approximately 20,000 cases annually with a settlement rate exceeding 75%. ACAS mediators possess specialist knowledge of employment law and workplace dynamics, enabling them to address issues ranging from disciplinary matters to discrimination claims. For civil and commercial disputes, the Civil Mediation Council maintains a directory of accredited mediators who have completed rigorous training and adhere to professional standards.
Facilitative mediation typically follows a structured format: joint opening sessions where parties present their perspectives, private caucuses where the mediator explores interests and options confidentially with each party, and negotiation phases where potential settlements are developed and refined. This flexibility allows the process to adapt to the specific dynamics of each dispute. Parties retain complete control over the outcome—no agreement can be imposed upon them, and they can withdraw from mediation at any point if they believe it is not productive.
Binding arbitration under ACAS arbitration scheme and UNCITRAL rules
Arbitration provides a private alternative to court proceedings where parties submit their dispute to an independent arbitrator whose decision is legally binding and enforceable. The arbitrator functions similarly to a judge, hearing evidence, considering legal arguments, and rendering a decision called an “award”. Unlike
court, arbitration operates under a contractually agreed framework, offering greater flexibility over procedures, choice of decision-maker, and timetable. This makes it particularly attractive in commercial, international, and specialist technical disputes where confidentiality and expertise are paramount. Awards made under recognised rules, such as the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules or the Arbitration Act 1996, are generally enforceable in over 160 countries under the New York Convention, giving arbitration a clear advantage in cross-border conflicts.
In the employment context, the ACAS Arbitration Scheme offers a streamlined route for resolving unfair dismissal and flexible working disputes. Once both employer and employee agree to use the scheme, an independent arbitrator hears the case in private and issues a final, binding award. The procedure is less formal than an Employment Tribunal, with simplified evidence rules and hearings often completed within a single day. For many employees and small businesses, this offers a faster and less intimidating way to obtain a binding outcome than traditional litigation.
For commercial parties, adopting the UNCITRAL rules or institutional rules (for example, LCIA or ICC) allows you to tailor the arbitration clause in your contracts to your specific needs. You can agree in advance on the number of arbitrators, their qualifications, the language of the proceedings, and even the seat of arbitration. However, once you opt for binding arbitration, your ability to appeal the award is extremely limited—usually only on narrow procedural grounds such as serious irregularity. You should therefore weigh the benefits of finality and speed against the reduced scope for challenge.
Conciliation services in employment tribunals and commercial disputes
Conciliation sits somewhere between mediation and arbitration, combining elements of both whilst maintaining a voluntary, non-binding character until a settlement is formally recorded. In the UK, you will most often encounter conciliation through ACAS early conciliation in employment disputes. Before you can issue most Employment Tribunal claims, you must notify ACAS, which will then offer free conciliation to help you and your employer negotiate a settlement. This statutory conciliation process has helped resolve tens of thousands of claims each year without the need for a full tribunal hearing.
During conciliation, the conciliator plays a more proactive role than a facilitative mediator might. They can evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s case, explain how tribunals typically approach similar disputes, and actively shuttle proposals between the parties. If agreement is reached, it is usually recorded in a legally binding COT3 agreement, which prevents either side from later bringing the same claim. This combination of informed guidance and binding settlement gives conciliation a pragmatic, outcome-focused feel that many workplace parties find reassuring.
Conciliation is also used in certain commercial and consumer contexts, often through trade associations or sector-specific schemes. For instance, some professional bodies and industry regulators offer conciliation to handle complaints about service quality or contractual performance. These schemes can be especially useful where you want a relatively quick, low-cost way to reach a compromise without the formality of arbitration. However, because conciliation is usually confidential and without prejudice until a settlement is signed, you should always seek independent legal advice before agreeing to any final terms.
Differences between evaluative, transformative, and narrative mediation approaches
Mediation is not a single, uniform process; different models emphasise different goals and roles for the mediator. Understanding these distinctions can help you choose the most suitable approach for your dispute. Evaluative mediation focuses on legal rights and likely court outcomes. The mediator—often an experienced lawyer or retired judge—may assess each party’s position, highlight weaknesses, and suggest settlement ranges based on comparable cases. This approach can be particularly effective in commercial, insurance, and personal injury disputes where the central issue is how much money should change hands.
Transformative mediation, by contrast, aims to change how parties interact rather than simply dividing up a “legal pie”. The mediator’s goal is to support empowerment and recognition: helping each person clarify their own needs and better understand the other’s perspective. You might choose this model where you have an ongoing relationship—such as co-parents after separation, business partners, or neighbours—and you want to rebuild trust or at least reduce hostility. The legal issues still matter, but they are framed within a broader conversation about communication, respect, and long-term arrangements.
Narrative mediation takes yet another angle, viewing conflict as driven by the stories people tell about what has happened and who is to blame. The mediator encourages you to explore and sometimes “re-write” those stories, separating individuals from the problem and looking for alternative narratives that allow cooperation and joint problem-solving. This can be especially useful in deeply entrenched disputes where each side has become locked into a fixed version of events. All three approaches share the core mediation characteristics of voluntariness, confidentiality, and party control, but they differ in style—rather like choosing between a coach, a referee, or a storyteller to guide your dispute.
Pre-action protocols and early dispute resolution mechanisms
Before most civil claims reach court, parties are expected—and in many cases required—to follow pre-action protocols. These are structured procedures set out in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) that encourage early information exchange, clarification of issues, and genuine attempts at settlement. If you ignore these steps and rush straight to issuing proceedings, the court may penalise you in costs, even if you ultimately win. In practical terms, pre-action protocols are a built-in early dispute resolution mechanism that often leads to agreement without a judge ever becoming involved.
Pre-action conduct usually involves sending a detailed letter of claim, providing key documents, and allowing the other side a reasonable period to investigate and respond. During this stage, you should consider negotiation, mediation, or other ADR methods; courts now expect you to be able to justify your refusal if you decline a reasonable ADR proposal. For many businesses and individuals, the pre-action phase is where reality testing takes place—both sides weigh up the likely costs, risks, and time involved in litigation, leading to more pragmatic settlement discussions. In this way, pre-action protocols function as a gateway to alternative legal procedures that can resolve disputes before they escalate.
CPR part 36 offers and settlement negotiations before litigation
One of the most powerful tools for early resolution is the CPR Part 36 offer. This is a formal, written offer to settle a claim on specified terms, made in accordance with detailed rules that carry significant cost consequences. Either the potential claimant or defendant can make a Part 36 offer before or after proceedings begin. The key idea is to encourage realistic settlements by rewarding parties who make or accept sensible offers and penalising those who unreasonably hold out for more.
If you are a claimant and you make a Part 36 offer that the defendant rejects, but you later obtain a court judgment that is at least as advantageous as your offer, you may be entitled to enhanced interest and indemnity costs from the date the relevant period expired. Conversely, if you reject a defendant’s Part 36 offer and then fail to beat it at trial, you may have to pay the defendant’s legal costs from that point onwards—even if you technically “win” the case. This creates a strong financial incentive to think carefully about settlement during the pre-action stage and to use ADR alongside Part 36 offers to narrow the gap between positions.
Because Part 36 offers are usually made “without prejudice except as to costs”, they cannot be shown to the judge deciding liability or quantum until after judgment. This preserves the integrity of the trial process whilst still allowing the court to take the offers into account when deciding who pays what in costs. For you as a potential litigant, understanding and using Part 36 strategically can feel a bit like playing chess rather than checkers—it adds an extra layer of tactical thinking that can significantly influence the final financial outcome of your dispute.
Professional negligence pre-action protocol requirements
Claims against professionals—such as solicitors, accountants, surveyors, architects, or financial advisers—are subject to a specific Professional Negligence Pre-Action Protocol. Its central objective is to promote early and full exchange of information so that liability and quantum can be assessed realistically without immediate resort to court. If you believe you have suffered loss due to a professional’s error, you will normally start by sending a detailed Letter of Claim. This should set out the alleged duty of care, how it was breached, the factual background, and an initial estimate of your financial loss, supported by documents.
The professional (or their indemnity insurer) then has a set period—usually three months—to investigate and respond with a Letter of Response and, where appropriate, a Letter of Settlement. These documents should clarify which allegations are admitted or denied, explain any defences, and provide their own view of the potential value of the claim. During this window, both sides are encouraged to explore mediation or other ADR procedures, often with the active involvement of insurers who are keen to manage costs. Because professional negligence cases can be complex and expert-heavy, resolving them at this stage can avoid years of expensive litigation.
Court decisions consistently emphasise that parties who unreasonably refuse mediation in professional negligence disputes risk adverse cost orders, even if they ultimately succeed at trial. From a practical perspective, this means you should approach the pre-action process with an open mind and a willingness to engage constructively. Think of the protocol as a structured conversation rather than a mere procedural hurdle: used well, it can provide the information and momentum needed to negotiate a fair settlement without stepping into a courtroom.
Construction and engineering disputes pre-action protocol compliance
Construction and engineering disputes often involve multiple parties, technical issues, and substantial sums, making early case management crucial. The Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes is designed to narrow the issues and encourage settlement through a staged process. It typically requires a comprehensive Letter of Claim, a detailed Response, and a pre-action meeting (sometimes called a “protocol meeting”) where representatives discuss the dispute face-to-face or via video conference. At this meeting, you are expected to explore not only settlement but also suitable ADR options such as mediation, expert determination, or adjudication.
The protocol recognises that strict compliance may not always be appropriate in urgent cases, for example where an injunction is needed or where limitation periods are about to expire. Nevertheless, courts will generally look unfavourably on parties who ignore it without good reason. Non-compliance can result in cost sanctions or limits on the evidence you can rely upon later. In practice, many construction disputes settle at or shortly after the protocol meeting, particularly when parties exchange key expert reports and project documentation beforehand. This avoids the disruptive and costly impact of full-scale Technology and Construction Court (TCC) proceedings.
Because construction projects often continue while disputes are brewing, early resolution mechanisms protect ongoing commercial relationships as well as cash flow. You might use adjudication to obtain a quick interim decision on payment issues, while reserving mediation for a broader final settlement of all claims. By treating the pre-action protocol as part of an integrated dispute resolution strategy, you can choose the right tool at the right time rather than defaulting to court as the only option.
Personal injury claims portal and MOJ claims process
Personal injury claims in England and Wales have their own streamlined pre-action systems, particularly for lower-value road traffic, employer’s liability, and public liability claims. The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) Claims Portal—sometimes called the “RTA Portal” or “EL/PL Portal”—is an online platform through which claimant representatives submit claims directly to insurers. The aim is to speed up liability decisions, control legal costs, and promote early settlement without issuing formal court proceedings. If your injury claim falls within the relevant value limits, your solicitor will usually start by lodging it through this portal.
Once a claim is submitted, the defendant’s insurer has a fixed period to admit or deny liability. If liability is admitted, the process moves into a negotiation stage where medical evidence, loss of earnings, and other heads of loss are shared electronically and offers are exchanged. Many claims settle at this point, often within months rather than years. If liability is denied or no agreement can be reached on quantum, the claim can exit the portal and proceed under the conventional pre-action protocol, with court proceedings as a last resort.
Recent reforms have also introduced the Official Injury Claim service for certain low-value road traffic soft tissue injuries, allowing unrepresented claimants to start and manage simple whiplash claims online. While these systems may seem bureaucratic at first glance, they are essentially structured ADR environments: they encourage early investigation, transparent information sharing, and settlement-based outcomes. As with other pre-action procedures, your willingness to engage constructively—and to consider mediation for more complex or higher-value injuries—can greatly improve both the speed and quality of your final compensation package.
Ombudsman services and regulatory complaint procedures
Ombudsman schemes provide an important alternative legal procedure for resolving disputes with financial institutions, housing providers, public bodies, and other organisations. Unlike courts, ombudsmen focus on what is “fair and reasonable” in all the circumstances, rather than applying the law in a strictly technical way. They are generally free to use, informal, and designed to be accessible even if you do not have legal representation. For many consumers and tenants, making a complaint to an ombudsman is the most practical route to redress when internal complaints processes have failed.
Ombudsman decisions are usually based on a paper investigation, although some schemes may hold virtual or in-person hearings in complex cases. Remedies can include apologies, compensation, practical steps to put things right, or changes to policies and procedures. While an ombudsman’s decision is not always legally binding on you as the complainant, it will typically bind the organisation if you accept it. This creates a relatively low-risk environment in which you can test your case before deciding whether to pursue formal litigation. It also means that regulated firms must take these schemes seriously, as adverse decisions can have reputational as well as financial consequences.
Financial ombudsman service jurisdiction and case resolution timelines
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) deals with disputes between consumers (and certain small businesses) and financial firms such as banks, insurers, investment providers, and mortgage lenders. Its jurisdiction covers a wide range of issues, including mis-sold products, unfair charges, poor service, and disputes over insurance claims. To bring a complaint, you must normally be an individual or a small business with a turnover or balance sheet value below specified thresholds, and you must first exhaust the firm’s internal complaints procedure. Once you receive a final response—or eight weeks have passed without one—you can escalate to the FOS, usually within a six-month time limit.
The FOS process is inquisitorial rather than adversarial. An investigator will gather information from both sides, review relevant documents, and may ask follow-up questions before issuing an initial view. Many cases are resolved at this stage through informal agreements. If you or the firm disagree with the investigator’s conclusions, the complaint can be referred to an ombudsman for a final decision. According to recent FOS data, simple cases can be resolved within a few months, though more complex matters may take significantly longer due to high caseloads.
If you accept the ombudsman’s final decision, it becomes binding on the firm and enforceable in court, with compensation currently capped at a specified monetary limit (which has increased in recent years to reflect inflation and evolving financial products). If you reject the decision, you remain free to pursue your claim through the courts instead, although judges may take note of the FOS findings. For many consumers, using the FOS offers a pragmatic balance between specialist expertise, low cost, and a realistic timeframe for resolution compared with full-blown litigation.
Housing ombudsman complaint handling code and remedies
The Housing Ombudsman Service deals with complaints from tenants and leaseholders about social landlords, housing associations, and certain private landlords who are members of the scheme. Typical issues include repairs, anti-social behaviour, complaint handling, estate management, and service charges. Before approaching the Housing Ombudsman, you must follow your landlord’s complaints procedure to its conclusion, but you do not need to be legally represented. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out expected standards for landlords, including clear processes, accessible communication, and timely responses.
When you bring a complaint, the Ombudsman will assess whether the landlord has acted fairly, reasonably, and in line with relevant policies, tenancy agreements, and legal obligations. Investigations may involve reviewing correspondence, inspection reports, internal records, and, where relevant, speaking to both you and the landlord. Outcomes range from findings of no maladministration to partial or full maladministration, and in some cases severe maladministration where failings are serious or repeated. Remedies can include compensation, specific performance (such as completing overdue repairs), and recommendations for policy or training changes.
Although Housing Ombudsman decisions are not the same as court judgments, landlords are expected to comply, and persistent non-compliance can attract regulatory scrutiny and public reports. For tenants facing poor conditions or persistent service failures, this route can be quicker, less formal, and less risky than bringing a county court claim. It also focuses on practical solutions—getting the leak fixed, addressing damp, improving complaint responses—rather than purely on financial damages. If you are unsatisfied with the outcome, you may still consider legal action, but many housing disputes are effectively resolved at this stage without stepping inside a courtroom.
Parliamentary and health service ombudsman investigation powers
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) investigates complaints about UK government departments, some public organisations, the NHS in England, and other health service providers. Its role is to examine whether there has been maladministration or service failure that has led to injustice or hardship. Examples include delays in benefit decisions, poor hospital care, failures in complaint handling, or incorrect application of policies. Before going to the PHSO, you must usually exhaust the internal complaints procedures of the organisation involved. For parliamentary complaints, you may also need a referral from an MP.
The PHSO has extensive powers to obtain documents, interview staff, and access records, which can feel somewhat like a non-court-based public inquiry into your specific issue. If it upholds a complaint, it can recommend remedies such as apologies, financial compensation, changes to procedures, or wider systemic reforms. While its recommendations are not strictly binding in the way court orders are, public bodies and NHS organisations overwhelmingly comply, both because of constitutional convention and because non-compliance can be reported to Parliament and attract significant scrutiny.
For individuals affected by serious administrative or healthcare failures, the PHSO provides an important avenue of redress that focuses on learning and prevention as well as individual remedy. It can sit alongside other processes, such as inquests, regulatory investigations, or clinical negligence claims. Deciding whether to use the PHSO, litigation, or both will depend on your goals: are you primarily seeking compensation, or do you want an independent body to examine what went wrong and push for change? In many cases, combining an ombudsman investigation with legal advice offers a powerful, complementary approach.
Online dispute resolution (ODR) platforms and digital justice solutions
Digital technology is rapidly transforming how disputes are resolved, offering you new ways to handle conflicts without attending a physical court or mediation centre. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platforms provide structured processes—often using web forms, secure messaging, and video conferencing—to help parties negotiate, mediate, or even obtain binding decisions entirely online. Examples include eBay’s dispute resolution system, online small claims procedures, and private ODR providers that specialise in consumer, commercial, or workplace disputes. For many low- to medium-value conflicts, ODR can feel a bit like online banking for justice: convenient, accessible, and available at times that suit you.
In England and Wales, the court service has been developing digital pathways for money claims, possession actions, and certain family matters. The Online Civil Money Claims system allows individuals and businesses to issue and respond to some county court claims via a web portal, with built-in prompts to encourage settlement and mediation at an early stage. Mediations may be conducted by telephone or video, reducing travel time and cost. During and after the COVID-19 pandemic, remote hearings became far more common, and hybrid models—combining digital case management with occasional in-person hearings—are likely to remain a permanent feature of the justice landscape.
Private ODR providers also offer innovative models, such as blind bidding tools where each side confidentially submits settlement ranges and the system automatically identifies overlaps, or algorithm-assisted negotiation platforms that suggest compromise figures based on typical outcomes. While these tools are not a panacea, they can remove some of the heat and emotion from negotiations by focusing on numbers and options. As with any technology, you should pay attention to data privacy, security, and the terms of use, especially where outcomes may be binding. Nonetheless, for many straightforward disputes, digital justice solutions provide a fast, flexible alternative to traditional court-based procedures.
Adjudication in construction disputes under HGCRA 1996
Adjudication is a statutory dispute resolution mechanism that plays a central role in the UK construction industry. Introduced by the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA) and refined by later amendments, it gives parties to most construction contracts a right to refer disputes to adjudication “at any time”. The aim is to provide a quick, interim decision that keeps cash flowing and projects moving, embodying the industry mantra of “pay now, argue later”. If you are involved in a construction project—whether as contractor, subcontractor, or employer—adjudication is often the first port of call when payment or valuation disputes arise.
The process is deliberately fast-paced. Once a dispute is referred, an adjudicator—typically an experienced construction professional or lawyer—is appointed, and a timetable is set that usually leads to a decision within 28 days (extendable by agreement). Written submissions, contract documents, and expert evidence are exchanged on a compressed schedule, and hearings, if any, are short and focused. The adjudicator’s decision is temporarily binding: it must be complied with immediately, but it can later be challenged through arbitration or litigation if either party wishes. In practice, many adjudication decisions are accepted as final because the cost and disruption of re-litigating the issues outweigh potential gains.
The Technology and Construction Court strongly supports adjudication, enforcing decisions swiftly unless there are clear jurisdictional or natural justice problems. This means that if you receive an unfavourable adjudication award, you will usually have to comply and then pursue your challenge separately. Conversely, if you obtain a favourable decision, you can often convert it into an enforceable judgment within weeks. For cash-strapped contractors and subcontractors, this can make the difference between survival and insolvency. As an alternative legal procedure to going to court, adjudication offers speed, industry expertise, and practical interim relief, albeit at the cost of a highly compressed timetable that requires rapid mobilisation of your legal and technical team.
Collaborative law and hybrid dispute resolution procedures
Collaborative law is a structured, team-based approach to resolving disputes, most commonly used in family law but increasingly considered in other contexts such as partnership and shareholder disagreements. Each party instructs their own collaboratively trained lawyer, and all participants sign a participation agreement committing to negotiate in good faith and to avoid court proceedings. A key feature is the “disqualification clause”: if the collaborative process breaks down and you decide to litigate, both collaborative lawyers must withdraw, and you each instruct new representatives. This creates a powerful shared incentive to make the process work.
Collaborative meetings usually take place in a series of joint sessions where legal, financial, and practical issues are addressed together. Other professionals—such as financial advisers, family consultants, or pensions experts—may be brought in as part of a multidisciplinary team. Because everyone is focused on reaching a mutually acceptable solution rather than “winning”, discussions can be more open and creative than in traditional positional negotiations. For separating couples, this can support better long-term co-parenting relationships and more sustainable financial arrangements. For business partners, it can facilitate dignified exits or restructured roles without the acrimony of a public court battle.
Hybrid dispute resolution procedures blend elements of different processes—such as mediation, arbitration, and expert determination—to create a bespoke pathway tailored to your dispute. For example, you might agree to “med-arb”, where a neutral first acts as a mediator and, if no settlement is reached, switches role to make a binding arbitral award on any outstanding issues. Alternatively, you could combine a non-binding expert evaluation on technical questions with subsequent mediation on commercial terms. These hybrids allow you to enjoy the best of several worlds: the flexibility and relationship focus of mediation, the certainty of arbitration, and the targeted expertise of specialist evaluators.
Designing an effective hybrid process requires careful thought and clear documentation, usually in the form of a dispute resolution agreement or contractual clause. You will need to consider confidentiality, privilege, the neutrality of the third party, and how to handle any information disclosed during without prejudice stages if the process moves into a binding phase. When done well, however, hybrid procedures can feel a bit like having a customised toolkit rather than a single blunt instrument. They exemplify the broader message of modern dispute resolution: court is no longer the only pathway to justice, and with the right advice, you can choose from a wide array of alternative legal procedures that better match your needs, priorities, and resources.