Technology and Online Dispute Resolution (ODR): Opportunities and Challenges in Modern ADR Practice.

By

  Joshua Ufedo Baba

Introduction

In our fast paced world permeated by digitalization, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is altering the location of dispute resolution mechanisms with the rise of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR). As technology changes how we interact with others, connect, and resolve conflicts, ODR has arisen as an indispensable tool to make dispute resolution more accessible, efficient, and cost-effective. By leveraging digital platforms, artificial intelligence, and automation, ODR as a futuristic entity expands the reach of ADR beyond traditional courtrooms and in-person mediations, offering new possibilities for resolving disputes.

However, while ODR presents exciting opportunities, it also brings stiff challenges—including data privacy breach, fairness, decisions made by algorithms and accessibility for the indigent populations. As the legal world, technologists, and policymakers navigate this terrain, understanding both the potential and the problems of ODR is crucial for shaping its future in modern ADR practice. Thus, this article explores the opportunities and challenges of ODR, examining how technology seeks to redefine dispute resolution while highlighting the key considerations for its sustainable adoption.

Alternative Dispute Resolution and Online Dispute Resolution.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) are means by which disputes are resolved without making recourse to the traditional Court establishment for settling such disputes. This is duly provided for under our. various laws, Section 19(d) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), mandates the settlement of disputes by Arbitration, Mediation, Conciliation, Negotiation and Adjudication. Order 19 of the High Court (Civil procedure) Rules, FCT 2018 provides for courts to encourage recourse to ADR options. 

Order 52 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2019 also provide for reference of cases to ADR. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2004. The Arbitration and Mediation Act, 2023. Finally, Rule 15 (3)(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) for Legal Practitioners encourages Lawyers seek alternative mechanisms of dispute resolution before bringing any matter before the Court for hearing. The various mechanism namely, Arbitration, Mediation, Conciliation, and Negotiation.

The Online Dispute Resolution adopts all  mechanisms of ADR but alternates the setting for dispute. Instead of a Multi-Door Court House, the venue is shifted to an online setting where the Court host litigants. Accordingly,  disputes are resolved electronically through e-Arbitration, e-Mediation, e-Negotiation, and e-Conciliation.

 

Benefits of this innovation in Modern ADR Practice

1. It provides easy access and comfort thereby enabling remote participation regardless of geographical barriers. It also pre-empt modern court innovations like e-filing and all-round availability for filing and resolving disputes.  

2. It is cost-effective, this it does by reducing the cost spent on litigation and other processes in the conventional court including travelling costs, lodging close to the court and other logistical expenses. 

3. ODR is time saving due to its efficiency & speed in its entire process. ODR processes are fully automated, there is no need for shuffling documents, unfurling papers and getting lost in routine processes. The introduction of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into the field has made case management a more effective endeavour.   

4. ODR reduces physical appearances and it is compatible with disputes that are either high-risk or low-valued. This poses it as a suitable setting for dispute resolution, especially in the commercial world. 

The Challenges of ODR Implementation  

1. The digital accessibility in Nigeria is still a strong argument against the adoption of ODR, the unequal access to digital resources by the poor coupled with the dire digital literacy and deep trust in anything analogue over digital is a major stumbling block.  

2. The issue of breach of confidentiality and privacy is another argument. Data breaches may be said to occur and confidential informations encrypted under ODR's platform might be released. The volatile state of data security alongside issues arising out of compliance with statutory regulations must be satisfied before this innovation is adopted. 

3. The enforceability of awards or decisions of ODR needs to be established. The lack of enforcement mechanisms, alongside jurisdictional issues as it relates to enforcement makes decisions made by ODR unlikely to be complied with. 

4. Since the process is fully automated, there exist the possibility of loss of communication in virtual settings. Explanations that could have been made effectively, physically, is lost over such virtual communication. Thus, there exist skepticism about fairness in fully automated processes.  

5. The need for an established regulatory & framework seeking to make uniform procedures for the use of ODR and even the enforcement of its decisions. 

Recommendation and Conclusion

There is  need for the legal profession to adopt technology as it eases the burdensome task of litigation. This can only be done by the row integration of ODR into the legal system. The ODR system is not a venue changing one seeking to erase physical appearance, it is rather, a hybrid model (joining online and offline processes).  There is also need for continuous innovation, regulation, and user education.  ODR provides alternatives as it relates to setting for ADR, as dispute mechanisms under such resolution form are usually not contentious— and where they are, grounds for amicable resolution exist. Accordingly, a balanced adoption strategy considering both its benefits and its challenges should influence its timely approval..