At one time the mindset in Bermuda was that Bermudians didn't sue ¿ or rather that Bermudians were reluctant to take matters to court. Notwithstanding the generally friendly atmosphere, if either is the case it is probably due more to the cost of litigation than to the friendly nature of Bermudians.

The common perception by all, and perhaps the underlying truth to the matter, is that court access and legal representation for individuals of limited, or even average, means is often prohibitively expensive. Bermuda's legal aid programme provides a service for those who cannot afford legal representation, but the vast majority of Bermudians do not qualify for such assistance.

That is because a legal aid certificate is generally not granted to anyone having a disposable income of more than $20,000 a year. Effectively, anyone earning more than $24,000 per year is unlikely to qualify because the disposable income of a person earning $24,000 is likely to be $20,160 or higher.

The average income for Bermudians in 2006 was just under $70,000, but perhaps more importantly, the mode income ¿ the salary most commonly earned by Bermudians ¿ was approximately $42,000. Disposable income on a person's earnings is around 84 percent. Therefore a person earning $42,000 has a disposable income of around $35,000 to pay their expenses with.

Although this is well above the $20,000 threshold, it is not enough to comfortably afford to retain an attorney privately. Hence, Bermuda's population is segmented ¿ there are those whose economic bracket qualifies them for legal assistance, others who earn enough to retain an attorney privately, and a third group (the vast majority) that earns too much to be afforded legal aid and yet cannot comfortably afford to retain an attorney privately.

It is for that group that Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is most valuable as it offers some relatively inexpensive alternatives to the court system ¿ including negotiation and mediation. In negotiation, participation is voluntary and there is no third party who facilitates the resolution process or imposes a resolution. With mediation there is a third party who facilitates and may suggest a resolution to the process but does not have the authority to demand that anything is enforced.

Typically, with ADR, the parties have an enhanced ability to control their situation and the outcomes.

They choose the type of dispute resolution mechanism, where they convene, for how long (they can end it at any time), their advocates, the mediator (if one is desired) and the form of the resolution.

A truly mutual compromise can be reached leaving both parties with the feeling of having sought and found acceptable results. Contrast this with a court trial, where the judge is bound by the law and prescribed remedies available.

This frequently leaves at least one party, and sometimes both, feeling disappointed whereas with ADR the parties can resolve their differences on the basis of what they both consider to be 'fair'. The classic characterisation is that litigation is a "winner takes all" mechanism whereas successful resolution of a dispute using ADR affords the possibility of a "win-win" situation.

Court proceedings are notoriously time consuming and expensive.

Associated with the demanding trial process is the emotional experience the parties undergo. Historically, courts were designed to be terrifying to act as a deterrent for people appearing before them. Because the processes are so drawn out, and because of the constitutional and human rights to a fair trial, and to competent representation, even the simplest disputes can result in lengthy litigation. The more use is made of ADR the fewer cases there will be that need to go to trial. This will serve to protect individuals from undue emotional stress and unnecessary expense ¿ and also keep the courts clear for the more difficult cases.

Formal court proceedings or arbitrations are necessary to resolve certain disputes and experienced lawyers will easily identify those for their clients. For many other disputes, however, ADR is more than just a feasible option.

It represents the most realistic, appropriate and beneficial option available. Prospective litigants should always consider it.

John Wasty, an accredited mediator, is an attorney in the Litigation and Insolvency Practice Group of Appleby. A copy of Mr. Wasty's column can be found on the Appleby website at www.applebyglobal.com

This column should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice. Before proceeding with any matters described herein, persons are advised to consult with a lawyer.