TRENTON, NJ -- New Jersey could save millions of taxpayer dollars using mediation techniques that would be expanded to all state agencies, under a measure approved by the Assembly Judiciary Committee today and supported by the Public Advocate.

A-4333, sponsored by Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein, would require state agencies to adopt alternative dispute resolution (ADR) policies and would promote the voluntary use of these non-adversarial techniques to resolve disputes and avoid costly litigation. Both parties would have to agree to the use of these dispute resolution techniques.

The bill is based on a federal law passed in 1996 that has saved the federal government significant dollars by avoiding expensive litigation.

Under the bill, the Public Advocate’s Office of Dispute Settlement would help train staff at state agencies in these techniques.

“Alternative dispute resolution is a win-win option that should be promoted in the state,” said Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen. “ADR can result in better outcomes for both parties and significant savings in both time and money. New Jersey taxpayers would benefit by receiving better government services and cost savings”

ADR procedures have been used successfully in the private sector for many years. The federal government, state agencies around the country and New Jersey courts have also recently adopted these measures, according to a Public Advocate white paper released today. The white paper cites to a 2007 federal study that documents the significant savings the federal government has attributed to ADR implementation.

Administrative proceedings can become increasingly formal, costly and lengthy, offering less chance that a mutually-agreeable decision will be reached. In appropriate circumstances, alternative dispute resolution has yielded results that are faster, less expensive, less contentious and more mutually satisfying, according to the Public Advocate white paper.

“Non-adversarial dispute settlement is good for taxpayers and good for government,” Chen said. “We encourage the Legislature to pass this measure quickly so we can expand the practice of resolving conflicts without costly and divisive litigation.”

A Primer on Alternative Dispute Resolution

What is Alternative Dispute Resolution?

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) refers to various methods of resolving disputes without litigation, including negotiation, facilitation, mediation and arbitration.

Negotiation: Disputants attempt to reach a non-binding resolution of the dispute themselves, without the help of a third party.

Facilitation: A neutral third party helps disputants identify issues and exchange  information in an attempt to reach a non-binding resolution. There is no settlement unless both parties agree.

Mediation: A neutral third party assists the disputants in not only identifying issues and exchanging information, but also addressing the substance of the dispute by exploring ways to resolve the conflict. There is no settlement unless both parties agree. Again, this is non-binding.

Arbitration: A binding process where a neutral third party holds a formal hearing and evaluates evidence presented by both sides. The arbitrator then renders a decision that is legally binding on both sides. The arbitrator is essentially a private judge, who receives a stipend for his services, helping to speed up the process because disputants do not have to wait their turn on crowded court dockets.

ADR can be tailored to fit a wide variety of administrative programs. Alternative means of dispute resolution lead to more creative, efficient and sensible outcomes and greater trust and satisfaction among the parties and, ultimately, in government.

Read the Public Advocate's ADR Report