The SMART Method:

---

Although ADR is generally faster than court, many processes still suffer from delays. Scheduling conflicts, limited mediator availability, and multi-session structures can stretch disputes out for months, undermining one of ADR’s original promises.

ADR is often marketed as “low cost,” but in practice expenses can add up quickly. Hourly mediator fees, preparation time, attorney involvement, and repeated sessions can make ADR far more expensive than parties initially expect.

Many ADR professionals bill by the hour, creating little incentive to resolve matters quickly. In some cases, longer disputes mean higher fees—an incentive structure that can conflict with the parties’ desire for efficiency.

As ADR has become institutionalized, many processes now mirror the formality of litigation. Strict procedures, lengthy position statements, rigid session formats, and legalistic approaches can reintroduce the complexity ADR was meant to avoid.

Many ADR models emphasize strict neutrality to the point of disengagement. Mediators may avoid actively guiding the process, challenging assumptions, or pushing toward resolution—leaving parties stuck without meaningful progress.

Traditional ADR can become overly process-driven. Sessions may focus more on following a standard structure than on achieving a practical, lasting resolution that meets the parties’ real needs.

There is wide variation in training, experience, and approach among ADR professionals. Outcomes often depend heavily on the individual mediator or arbitrator, leading to inconsistent experiences and results.

Even outside of court, ADR can still become adversarial—especially when lawyers dominate the process. Positional bargaining, strategic posturing, and threats can replace collaboration, undermining the purpose of ADR.