International Society of Primerus Law Firms

Alternative Dispute Resolution Law Firms

Alternative Dispute Resolution Law Firm Directory

« Back To Practice Area List | Sort List By Location

Law Firm NameLocation
Atkin Winner & Sherrod Las Vegas Nevada
Ayres Carr & Sullivan, P.C. Indianapolis Indiana
Barcellos Tucunduva Advogados Sao Paulo Brazil
Barton LLP New York New York
Bennett Law Firm, P.A., The New Hampshire
Bennett Law Firm, P.A., The Portland Maine
Bivins & Hemenway, P. A. Tampa Florida
Brody Wilkinson PC Fairfield County Connecticut
Broedermann Jahn Hamburg Germany
Buchman Provine Brothers Smith LLP San Francisco California
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. Phoenix Arizona
Cacheaux Cavazos & Newton Matamoros Mexico
Cacheaux Cavazos & Newton San Pedro Garza Garcia Mexico
Cacheaux Cavazos & Newton Ciudad Juarez Mexico
Cacheaux Cavazos & Newton Queretaro Mexico
Cacheaux Cavazos & Newton Mexico City Mexico
Cacheaux Cavazos & Newton Reynosa Mexico
Cacheaux Cavazos & Newton Tijuana Mexico
Cacheaux, Cavazos & Newton Guadalajara Mexico
Carroll & O'Dea Sydney Australia
Christian & Small LLP Birmingham Alabama
Coleman & Horowitt, LLP Fresno California
Collins & Lacy, P.C. Columbia South Carolina
Demorest Law Firm, PLLC Royal Oak Michigan
Demorest Law Firm, PLLC Detroit Michigan
Demorest Law Firm, PLLC Dearborn Michigan
Diamond Law Attorneys George Town Grand Cayman Cayman Islands
Downs ♦ Stanford, P.C. Austin Texas
Downs ♦ Stanford, P.C. Dallas Texas
FDL, Studio Legale e Tributario Milan Italy
Ferris & Britton, A Professional Corporation San Diego California
Foland, Wickens, Eisfelder, Roper & Hofer, P.C. Kansas City Missouri
Formosan Brothers Taipei Taiwan
Fowler Bell PLLC Lexington Kentucky
Fusthy & Manyai Law Office Budapest Hungary
Ganfer & Shore, LLP New York New York
Giwa-Osagie & Company Ikoyi Nigeria
Hanol Law Offices Seoul South Korea
Hengtai Law Offices Shanghai China
HHG Legal Group West Perth Australia
Hodkin Law Group, P.A. Boca Raton Florida
J. Lee & Associates Kuala Lumpur Malaysia
Johnson, Graffe, Keay, Moniz & Wick, LLP Seattle Washington
Johnson, Graffe, Keay, Moniz & Wick, LLP Tacoma Washington
JustLaw Bangalore Karnataka India
Kennerly, Montgomery & Finley, P.C. Knoxville Tennessee
Koffman Kalef LLP Vancouver Canada
Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C. Milwaukee Wisconsin
Krevolin & Horst, LLC Atlanta Georgia
Lane & Lane, LLC Chicago Illinois
Lipe Lyons Murphy Nahrstadt & Pontikis, Ltd. Chicago Illinois
Mandelbaum Salsburg P.C. Roseland New Jersey
Marriott Harrison LLP London United Kingdom
Mateer Harbert, PA Orlando Florida
MME Legal | Tax | Compliance Zurich Switzerland
Montgomery Barnett, L.L.P. New Orleans Louisiana
Montgomery Barnett, L.L.P. Baton Rouge Louisiana
Navinlaw Pakkred Nontaburi Thailand
Neil, Dymott, Frank, McFall, Trexler, McCabe & Hudson APLC San Diego California
Nicklaus & Associates, P.A. Miami Florida
Nicklaus & Associates, P.A. Coral Gables Florida
Njoroge Regeru & Company Kenya Kenya
Ogborn Mihm LLP Denver Colorado
Ogden & Sullivan, P.A. Tampa Florida
ONC Lawyers Hong Kong Hong Kong (SAR)
O'Meara, Leer, Wagner & Kohl, P.A. Eau Claire Wisconsin
O'Meara, Leer, Wagner & Kohl, P.A. Minneapolis Minnesota
Pinilla Gonzalez & Prieto Abogados Bogota Colombia
Prince Yeates Salt Lake City Utah
Quijano & Associates Belize District Belize
Quijano & Associates Road Town, Tortola British Virgin Islands
Quijano & Associates Panama City Panama
Refalo & Zammit Pace Advocates Valletta Malta
Roe Cassidy Coates & Price, P.A. Greenville South Carolina
Roeca Luria Hiraoka LLP Honolulu Hawaii
Rosen Hagood Charleston South Carolina
Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A. Wilmington Delaware
Rothman Gordon Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
Rudolph Friedmann LLP Boston Massachusetts
Russell Advocaten B.V. Amsterdam Netherlands
S Eshwar Consultants | House of Corporate & IPR Laws Chennai India
Seth Dua & Associates Noida India
Seth Dua & Associates New Delhi India
Smiling, Smiling & Burgess Tulsa Oklahoma
Smith Debnam Narron Drake Saintsing & Myers, LLP Raleigh North Carolina
Spicer Rudstrom PLLC Nashville Tennessee
Spicer Rudstrom PLLC Chattanooga Tennessee
Spicer Rudstrom PLLC Memphis Tennessee
Szilagyi & Daly Hartford Connecticut
Timmins LLC Denver Colorado
Trevett Cristo P.C. Rochester New York
Vatier & Associes Paris France
Vukmir & Associates Croatia Croatia
Watts, Donovan & Tilley, P.A. Little Rock Arkansas
Wharton Aldhizer & Weaver, PLC West Virginia
Wharton Aldhizer & Weaver, PLC Harrisonburg Virginia
Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney, LLP Sacramento California
WINHELLER Attorneys at Law & Tax Advisors Frankfurt am Main Germany
Zupkus & Angell, P.C. Denver Colorado

Find a Primerus Lawyer

Primerus Law Firms (A-Z) Primerus Lawyers (A-Z) Primerus Law Firms by Practice Area Primerus Law Firms by Location Primerus Law Firms by Language Map of Primerus Law Firms

Learn More About
Alternative Dispute Resolution Law

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is an approach or means for resolving disputes outside the judicial system of state or federal courts, commonly in the form of arbitration or mediation. Mediation is considered among the less formal alternatives to litigation that involves a panel or impartial third party (typically consisting of a group of qualified attorneys or retired judges experienced in negotiations) that intervenes to reach a settlement of the dispute.


Arbitration is the procedure by which parties agree to submit their disputes to an independent neutral third party, known as an arbitrator, who considers arguments and evidence from both sides, then hands down a final and binding decision. This alternative, which can be used to adjudicate business-to-business, business-to-employee, or business-to-customer disputes, can utilize a permanent arbitrator, an independent arbitrator selected by the two parties to resolve a particular grievance, or an arbitrator selected through a mediation service. A board of arbitrators can also be used in a hearing.

After the arbitrator is selected, both sides are given the opportunity to present their perspectives on the issue or issues in dispute. These presentations include testimony and evidence that are provided in much the same way as a court proceeding, although formal rules of evidence do not apply. Upon completion of the arbitration hearing, the arbitrator reviews the evidence, testimony, and the collective bargaining agreement, considers principles of arbitration, and makes a decision. The arbitrator’s decision is generally rendered within 60 days. The parties involved in a contractual binding arbitration provision agree to accept the risk of being stuck with an unacceptable decision.

Other forms of arbitration include the following:

* Expedited arbitration is a process intended to speed up the arbitration process with an informal hearing. Under this process, decisions are generally rendered within five days. It was first used in 1971 in settling disputes in the steel industry.
* Interest arbitration is the use of an arbitrator or board of arbitrators to render a binding decision in resolving a dispute over new contract terms.
* Final offer selection arbitration is an interest arbitration process in which the arbitrator or board of arbitrators selects either the union or management proposal to the solution. There can be no compromised decisions. This process is also termed either-or arbitration.
* Tripartite arbitration is a process wherein a three-member panel of arbitrators is used to reach a decision. Both labor and management select an arbitrator and the third is selected by the other two arbitrators or the parties to the dispute as a neutral participant.


In contrast to arbitration, mediation is a process whereby the parties involved utilize an outside party to help them reach a mutually agreeable settlement. Rather than dictate a solution to the dispute between labor and management, the mediator—who maintains scrupulous neutrality throughout—suggests various proposals to help the two parties reach a mutually agreeable solution. In mediation, the various needs of the conflicting sides of an issue are identified, and ideas and concepts are exchanged until a viable solution is proposed by either of the parties or the mediator. Rarely does the mediator exert pressure on either party to accept a solution. Instead, the mediator’s role is to encourage clear communication and compromise in order to resolve the dispute. The terms “arbitration” and “mediation” are sometimes used interchangeably, but this mixing of terminology is careless and inaccurate. While the mediator suggests possible solutions to the disputing parties, the arbitrator makes a final decision which is binding on the parties.

Mediation can be a tremendously effective tool in resolving disputes without destroying business relationships. It allows parties to work toward a resolution out of the public eye (the courts) without spending large sums on legal expenses. Its precepts also ensure that a company will not become trapped in a settlement that it finds unacceptable (unlike an arbitration decision that can go against the company). Mediation only works when the parties employing it are willing to go all out in the attempt to achieve settlement. The mediator must be selected carefully, with an eye toward the critical attributes of neutrality, subject matter and process expertise.