Which of the following is a disadvantage of Alternative Dispute Resolution?

The selection of the statement that compromise between parties is a disadvantage of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) overlooks a fundamental understanding of ADR processes. In reality, the ability to reach a compromise is often a significant advantage of ADR, as it promotes collaboration and can lead to more amicable resolutions that are tailored to the specific needs of the parties involved.

Disadvantages of ADR typically include issues such as lack of public record, limited enforcement mechanisms, or the absence of a formal judicial ruling. For instance, while some types of ADR can sometimes involve elements of compromise, the effectiveness of any resolution relies on the willingness of both parties to negotiate and potentially concede points of contention. However, this can lead to a scenario where one party feels dissatisfied or resentful over the results, as they may perceive that they did not fully achieve their objectives.

Choosing to highlight the aspect of compromise misses the point that ADR is generally designed to promote resolution without the need for sweeping victories that often characterize litigation, thus fostering ongoing relationships that litigation may jeopardize.