Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is different from court rule in that a person for neutral procedure is involved unlike negotiation or reconciliation between parties in disputes that need the involvement of the courts, one of the state powers. Its strong points include transparency, neutrality, and fairness compared to the negotiation and reconciliation. In a negotiation with a partner in dispute, the gap in terms of legal knowledge and money between partners can lead to unfair or unclear resolutions for a relatively weaker partner, and it becomes more difficult to resolve the case at the end of the negotiation. ADR, however, involves the third person with neutrality and fairness to fix the gap and seek for fair resolution. It even increases the possibility to resolve the stalemate of the dispute through the third person`s involvement. ADR has more benefits in terms of time, cost, flexibility, confidentiality and expertise. ADR is used in diverse cases of consumer`s complaints, medical conflicts and international trades. We can also think of using ADR in resolving financial disputes. Because of the diversity and complexity in the financial market, the disputes cannot be resolved with only legal knowledge. Along with the diverse financial products, consumers buying the products increase, and in accordance buying and selling of the financial products happens daily. On the contrary, consumers` lack of knowledge, sellers` inefficient explanation, exaggerative advertisement of the products and financial fraud cause loss of investment by the consumers, increasing the financial disputes. Just like other disputes between individuals, it is realistic to resolve the financial disputes in the court, but consumers have less information than the financial companies and they are weaker in terms of money and expertise. Considering the situation, it is problematic to resolve the disputes in the court. Therefore, it is much more economical and efficient to use ADR which has many benefits of time, money and expertise.