Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Lawyers & Arbitration Services

Alternative dispute resolution lawyers

Our clients include some of the world’s leading investment banks, financial institutions, legal and accounting firms, trust companies, local governments, insurance companies and high net worth individuals, all of whom have an increasing interest in, and demand for, alternative methods and processes to resolve their disputes.

It has become clear over the past decade that there has been a notable increase in the understanding of the benefits of alternative dispute resolution over court litigation.

Arbitration lawyers

Arbitration in particular has become a popular method of resolving commercial disputes. With arbitration clauses increasingly being found in commercial contracts, arbitration can deliver binding and internationally enforceable decisions.

Our expert alternative dispute resolution lawyers are familiar with all major arbitration conventions and rules, and also conduct ad-hoc arbitrations under rules of the parties’ own devising. This deep knowledge and experience enables an arbitration lawyer at Appleby to help clients achieve cost-effective and commercial outcomes in resolving disputes independently of traditional forms of litigation.

Our global presence enables our arbitration lawyers to provide timely and comprehensive legal advice at the times most critical to our clients.

Our team is experienced in all aspects of arbitration and alternative dispute resolution, including:

Routinely advising on the meaning and effect of dispute resolution clauses
Drafting highly effective dispute resolution clauses tailored to the client’s specific needs
Providing strategic advice and representation in all means of alternative dispute resolution including mediation, expert determination, adjudication and early neutral evaluation
Conduct of arbitration proceedings
Legal proceedings in aid of foreign and local arbitrations
Enforcement of arbitral awards

In need of an arbitration lawyer? View our experts in alternative dispute resolution here.

Types of alternative dispute resolution

Although arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism is well-known, there are other options for conflict resolution outside the conventional legal system. Arbitration lawyers will also be skilled in various other alternative dispute resolution methods such as mediation, conciliation, expert determination, adjudication and collaborative law.

For example, in mediation, a neutral mediatory facilitates communication, guiding parties toward a voluntary agreement. Conciliation shares similarities, involving a third party assisting in resolution, often with suggestions. Both methods prioritise cooperation, offering alternatives to the binding decisions associated with arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution solution.

In conclusion, alternative dispute resolution methods, including arbitration, empower parties to resolve disputes collaboratively, with arbitration lawyers perfectly placed to navigate these effective substitutes to traditional litigation.

Some commonly asked questions about arbitration and alternative dispute resolution, sometimes abbreviated to ADR, are highlighted below:

Alternative dispute resolution comprises non-litigious methods to resolve conflicts, such as arbitration, mediation and negotiation that act as alternatives to traditional court proceedings for more efficient and collaborative dispute resolution.

Arbitration is a dispute resolution process where parties present their cases to a neutral arbitrator, who renders a binding decision, offering a confidential and efficient alternative to litigation.

The different types of alternative dispute resolution can be quite varied depending on the setting or industry and include options such as arbitration, mediation, adjudication, conciliation, negotiation, collaborative law, mini-trials, and expert determination.

More news

20 Apr 2026

Avoiding The Nuclear Option: Buyout Orders In Just And Equitable Winding Up Proceedings

With the Cayman Islands being a preferred jurisdiction for the incorporation of investment vehicles, inevitably cases will arise where non-controlling shareholders complain that they are being unfairly prejudiced by conduct of those in control, and necessarily pursue those complaints by way of proceedings to wind up the subject company on the just and equitable ground. Where such complaints are well-founded, the outcome will often be an order putting the subject company into official liquidation. But the Cayman courts also have the jurisdiction in such cases to make a range of other orders as alternatives to taking that nuclear option, and are indeed obliged to consider whether any of those alternative orders would provide a more appropriate solution to the complaints.[1] The Grand Court was recently required to conduct that analysis in the case of Re Position Mobile Ltd SEZC.[2] The petitioning shareholder in that case had satisfied the Court that it would be just and equitable to wind up the company – since it had justifiably lost confidence in the probity of those in control, due to their serious and sustained misconduct and mismanagement – but positively sought a buyout order[3] as an alternative to a winding up. The Court thus proceeded to consider whether the buyout order, or any other alternative order, would be more appropriate than ordering a winding up, and concluded that a buyout order was the fairest and most appropriate form of relief in the circumstances of that case. The authors will discuss the guidance which the Position Mobile case provides in that regard below, which should be considered together with the guidance provided by Re Madera Technology Fund (CI) Ltd,[4] particularly in respect of the approach that the Cayman courts can be expected to take when setting the appropriate valuation date for a buyout order, with a view to ensuring that the valuation is fair to each side.[5] [1] See Re Virginia Solution SPC Ltd (unrep. 28 July 2023, CICA) at [61]. [2] [2026] CIGC (FSD) 10 [3] Requiring the respondent shareholders to purchase its shares at a fair price. [4] (unrep. 21 Aug. 2024, Richards J). [5] For further detail, see the authors’ article on the Madera Technology case at https://www.applebyglobal.com/publications/no-looking-back-investor-held-to-buyout-at-current-value-of-shares/.

Andrew Jackson

17 Apr 2026

2026 Guide to Asset Tracing and Recovery in the Cayman Islands

This country-specific Q&A provides an overview of Asset Tracing & Recovery laws and regulations applicable in the British Virgin Islands.

Daniel Mitchell, Tamara Cameron, Dave Marshall

16 Apr 2026

2026 Guide to Asset Tracing and Recovery in the Cayman Islands

This country-specific Q&A provides an overview of Asset Tracing & Recovery laws and regulations applicable in Cayman Islands.

Harriet Ter-Berg, Alan Bercow, Jae Shin, Róisín Cottrell

15 Apr 2026

Bermuda: Asset Tracing and Recovery

This country-specific Q&A provides an overview of Asset Tracing & Recovery laws and regulations applicable in Bermuda.

John Wasty, Claire van Overdijk KC, John Riihiluoma, James Batten, Robert Nash

Appleby-Website-Private-Client-and-Trusts-Practice-1905px-x-1400px

15 Apr 2026

Purpose trusts: Bermuda’s answer to modern asset structuring

Purpose trusts represent a notable development in modern trust law, particularly within offshore financial jurisdictions such as Bermuda. Unlike traditional private trusts, which are established for the benefit of identifiable beneficiaries, purpose trusts are created to achieve specific objectives or purposes. Historically, common law jurisdictions were reluctant to recognise such arrangements due to the absence of beneficiaries capable of enforcing the trust. However, legislative reforms in Bermuda have significantly expanded the scope of trust law by expressly validating noncharitable purpose trusts. Through the enactment of the Trusts (Special Provisions) Act 1989 (‘the 1989 Act’), Bermuda introduced a statutory framework that allows trusts to exist for defined purposes, provided certain legal requirements are satisfied. This innovation has made Bermuda a leading jurisdiction for the establishment of purpose trusts, particularly in the fields of international finance, corporate structuring and private wealth management. This article examines the legal foundations of purpose trusts under Bermuda law, focusing on their historical development, statutory framework, requirements for validity, enforcement mechanisms and practical applications.