Determining the ideal method for resolving a business dispute can be a challenge for businesses. A business that does not have a large cash reserve and time to sit in a court room may need to consider the non-traditional forms of dispute resolution. In some cases clients insist that the cases be heard and decided by a judge, at which point traditional litigation would be the course of action. (Steven Harms, 2011) Some of the most popular forms of non-traditional ADR are Arbitration, Mediation and Negotiation. Arbitration is a legal technique where the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons, the arbitrators, by whose decision they agree to be bound. (“Arbitration,” 2012) Some of the advantages of arbitration over traditional litigation is usually must faster to come to an agreement, it cost less money and usually the proceedings and terms of the agreement do not make it to the public. In contrast a traditional trial can last quite a long time and can become very expensive, as the judge and jury come to a conclusion, not to mention the media attention that the case could potentially get bringing both parties into the spot light. Mediation is another way of resolving disputes between two or more parties with concrete effects. (“Mediation,” 2012) One of the biggest advantages of Mediation is avoiding the high costs associated with a trial. As a mediator is normally a third party who aides in working with both parties to come to an agreement, confidentiality is usually maintained in this form of non-traditional dispute resolution techniques. Choosing a person who is controlled, and has the ability to hear both sides of the issue without forming a bias is crucial with mediation. The mediator needs to be able to work effectively with both parties in dispute to come to a resolution. One of the disadvantages of Mediation is the agreements made are value based while a traditional litigation decision would be legally bound. The form of non-traditional ADR called Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people or parties, intended to reach an understanding, resolve point of difference, or gain advantage in outcome of dialogue, to produce an agreement that satisfies both parties in the dispute. (“Negotiation,” 2012) Since negotiation is intended to aim at compromise, this is a best solution when the parties in dispute may have a future business relationship. Coming to an agreement that benefits both parties working through a negotiator is an effective way to resolve a dispute. Some of the disadvantages of negotiation is potentially dealing with competitive personalities that have a hard time compromising as well as dealing with issues of trust between parties. Many times negotiation is facilitated through a hired attorney, so the cost benefit in this method is not as substantial. The benefit of negotiation is that each party participating in the negotiation process gets to participate in the decisions that are made that will impact each party. Each party can make the decision if the terms are acceptable or not, and negotiate a better compromise if necessary. While there are advantages and disadvantages to both traditional and non-traditional litigation techniques at the end of the day both parties need to walk away from the affair with confidence that fair and justified decisions have been made to resolve the dispute. Basically the best method of litigation to choose should be determined on based on the severity of the dispute.