Legal subject matter can sometimes be fairly simple and straightforward and at other times notably complex.
And context can be everything.
That nuanced quality makes a one-size-fits-all answer to whether arbitration or formal courtroom litigation is a better legal response to conflict an illogical response.
A recent online comparison of litigation and arbitration as strategies for resolving business conflict makes some telling points, which we pass along for readers here.
One of those stresses that, while settlements reached through arbitration are clearly preferred by at-odds commercial entities to resolve conflict, “a settlement isn’t always the best course of action.”
In other words, going to trial is sometimes the only strategy that might secure a best-case result for a business actor facing compelling legal challenges.
In short, there can be singular risks and rewards to both arbitration and litigation in any given case. That reality requires business principals to do some timely homework before they opt for a particular strategy.
Company executives will have many concerns to deal with en route to reaching a decision on an arbitration-versus-litigation choice. Costs will loom large, of course, as will the time involved, demands on business principals, reputational issues and many other considerations.
Knowledgeable business attorneys stand ready to help shed light on what might be a better course to pursue in a select matter, and why. A meaningful discussion with seasoned commercial attorneys will yield the clear take away that an effective legal team must necessarily have a strong collective background in both litigation and courtroom-avoidance strategies.
Seasoned attorneys will always be fully ready to take a dispute to court. They will also be equally prepared, though, to explore a solution to conflict that bypasses litigation.