The phrase "adversarial litigation" is correct and usable in written English.
It is typically used in legal contexts to describe a type of legal proceeding where two parties oppose each other, often in a courtroom setting.
Example: "The case was characterized by adversarial litigation, with both sides presenting strong arguments to support their positions."
Alternatives: "contested legal proceedings" or "opposing litigation".
Phrased slightly differently, the decision preserves the status quo, and thus the quiet life for judges, by placing nearly insurmountable barriers in the path of serious adversarial litigation.
The justice select committee report said that while the MoJ had made "significant savings" in the legal aid scheme it had: Not discouraged unnecessary and adversarial litigation at public expense because courts and tribunals are having to meet the costs of the rise in litigants in person.
I think the main problem is that we use what's called the adversarial litigation system to resolve many of these matters.
Since then, she has turned her law practice away from adversarial litigation and toward representing parties in collaborative and cooperative divorce.
With all of this information available, how can the self-regulated legal profession reasonably believe that resolving such matters through litigation, litigated negotiation, or any other such adversarial process is in the public's interest?
In addition to the financial drain, he said, the adversarial process of litigation would present an "insurmountable barrier to bringing about what is necessary — healing".
Mexico passed a sweeping but unevenly implemented reform in 2008 aimed at adopting a so-called "adversarial model" of litigation that's more in line with the U.S. system.
Legal disputes are typically resolved through litigation or litigated negotiation, which are adversarial processes and thereby exacerbate the conflict in order to resolve the dispute.
In fact, litigation and adversarial negotiation can and do actually exacerbate the conflict.
One might assume that providing clients with "adequate information and explanation about the material risks of and reasonably available alternatives to" litigation and adversarial negotiation would fall within the purview of a lawyer's professional responsibility.
