Confronting banking disputes requires the use of effective mechanisms that are organized according to the complexity of monetary and banking relations and the characteristics of the disputes arising from them. The hypothesis of this paper is that if the banking disputes are not caused by a fundamental difference in the regulations governing the case and its interpretation, but are rooted in the method of calculating the claims, banking disputes resolution by neutral evaluation as an alternative method of dispute resolution and making it decisive can be more efficient than other methods and achieve the aforementioned indicators. This research, which has been done using a descriptive-analytical method and library tools, tries to evaluate the feasibility of resorting to neutral evaluation in the mentioned banking disputes in the current legal order and to provide a practical solution to improve the current situation of the country's financial system. The findings show that rules such as the "Rule of Expediency", "Rule of Peace" and "Normative Economic Analysis" are appropriate capacities to solve this issue and can justify the banking disputes resolving by Neutral Evaluation and binding the expert's opinion. However, it seems that the promotion of this method and its validation in the current situation requires the creation of the necessary legal infrastructure by the legislator and the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran according to international experiences, and this can be a suitable background for the use of alternative dispute resolution in the context of banking disputes.