How does 'alternative dispute resolution' (ADR) contrast with litigation?

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is characterized as a set of methods for resolving disputes without resorting to litigation. The correct choice highlights that ADR includes processes like mediation and arbitration, which occur outside of a court setting. This distinction is fundamental because it underlines the informal nature of ADR compared to litigation, wherein disputes are resolved through formal court proceedings.

In ADR, parties often work collaboratively with a neutral third party to explore solutions and facilitate negotiations, which can lead to a more amicable resolution and often a faster outcome. This approach contrasts sharply with litigation, which is adversarial, may involve lengthy procedures, and typically results in a judgment imposed by a court.

The other options do not accurately describe the nature of ADR compared to litigation. For instance, public hearings are more associated with litigation, where court proceedings are generally open to the public. Additionally, ADR is often considered to be more cost-effective than litigation, as it can reduce legal fees and expenses related to prolonged court cases. Lastly, while litigation must adhere to strict legal protocols, ADR is characterized by its flexibility and does not necessitate rigid adherence to formal legal procedures. Therefore, the correct understanding of ADR emphasizes its role as an alternative method for dispute resolution outside of the conventional court system.