Which is an advantage of ADR over court proceedings?

• A. Minimizes the cost of seeking a solution when another party can generate more efficient results
• B. Provides greater sense of privacy and control rather than going to court
• C. ADR yields binding verdicts that courts enforce
• D. ADR always leads to settlement even if parties remain far apart

Answer: (B)

The main idea here is that ADR offers greater privacy and more control over the process than going to court. Court proceedings are generally public, with formal rules and a judge or jury delivering the decision, and many documents become part of the public record. ADR is different: many processes are confidential, and parties can shape how the process unfolds—who participates, what steps are taken, the timelines, what information is shared, and who makes the final decision. In arbitration, you choose the arbitrator and the procedures, and the outcome is binding and enforceable, while in mediation you work toward a mutually agreed solution. This combination of privacy and control is a key advantage of ADR.

The other statements aren’t as accurate in capturing the typical benefits. Cost savings in ADR aren’t guaranteed and depend on the case; ADR isn’t inherently cheaper in every situation. Not all ADR outcomes are binding (mediation is non-binding unless a agreement is reached), and even with binding arbitration, outcomes are not identical to court verdicts. Finally, ADR doesn’t always lead to a settlement; parties can still remain far apart and not reach an agreement.