The rapid increase in international trade in recent decades has been accompanied by a concomitant growth in international disputes. Customer demands and perspectives have also changed dramatically, as they now seek solutions that not only establish “truths” and rights, but also focus on underlying business interests. Speed ​​and cost have become primary concerns. Although the traditional adversarial system plays its role in protecting the client's rights, it is not always what the client is looking for. This posed a major challenge to the legal profession, which has historically been resistant to change. But it must change if it is to keep up with current developments in international trade and customer demands. So, in recent years, it has become common to talk about ADR or alternative dispute resolution. ADR procedures are intended to lead to an agreement between the parties that would resolve the dispute. What's interesting about ADR is that it uses two approaches. The first is the proactive approach to avoiding disputes, while the next offers a full range of ways to resolve those that arise. The agreement resulting from ADR procedures has the character of a contract. Enforcement of the Agreement, in the event of subsequent non-compliance with its terms, would be through judicial or arbitration, assuming an appropriate arbitration clause, as would non-compliance with any other contractual provision. . The most widespread procedures today are conciliation, mediation, mini-trial, evaluation by experts and the disputes committee. It is important to understand and remember that ADR is not intended to replace the traditional adversarial litigation system and is not a panacea. . It is crucial to discuss this with......middle of article......lawyers attempt to learn these skills directly by practicing ADR. And this is where the community of experienced mediators must step in and guarantee the quality of beginners. Between themselves, experienced mediators should develop rules, guidelines and new approaches. As Don Boyd said, “Winning/winning is an attitude, not an outcome.” Now is the time to change our attitude towards the legal profession and adopt new approaches to dispute resolution. The dynamic market poses new challenges, but as we have already said, they should rather be seen as new opportunities. ADR is not subject to strict litigation rules; instead, he is open to new approaches and creative thinking that will lead to a better understanding of our clients and more effective means of dispute resolution. It is therefore high time to move from a “win/lose” approach to litigation to a “win/win” approach to ADR...