As you know, what we do at Just Resolve is promote and facilitate neutral-driven, non-adversarial ADR (“Alternative Dispute Resolution”) in legal disputes where legal and other related costs of litigation (and its popular alternatives) would otherwise consume the financial stakes over which the parties are fighting.
Neutral-driven ADR is exactly what its name implies, and could also be described just as accurately as Non-adversarial ADR. Either characterization is a mouthful, however, that doesn’t trickle off the tongue, might be confused with the other traditional ADR methods from which we proudly distinguish ourselves, and adds to word counts in every sentence we write about it.
Fortunately, I recently discovered the following solution in a rare “Eureka!” moment that – like most such moments – delivered a long overdue solution that was already staring me in the face: In short, either of the above descriptions can be shortened for ease of reference to “NDR.”
As a nerd, I was excited by this because it satisfies my all-too-convenient criteria of (1) brevity, (2) catchiness, (3) an easy, memorable acronym, (4) accuracy, (5) relevancy, (6) cohesion with related terms, (7) distinction and lack of confusion, and (6) availability. In other words, it seems perfect. Thus, for example, now I can write:
“Instead of letting dueling lawyers drive a process that inherently blows up costs to absurd levels, NDR empowers a mutually selected, independent neutral judge, expert or panel to (a) conduct a robust, yet stakes-sensitive investigation into what happened and what law controls a dispute and, (b) if necessary, ultimately decide the dispute. Specific rules and steps can vary, and are important, but when done right, NDR delivers on all critical criteria for a process that delivers swift, reliable and affordable justice in limited stakes disputes.”
Like hearing a great new song, this makes me happy. Now if I could just get more people and companies to sing with me, they’ll be happier too.