NCJ Number
105014
Journal
Harvard Law Review Volume: 99 Issue: 3 Dated: (January 1986) Pages: 668-684
Date Published
1986
Length
17 pages
Annotation
Today, with the rise of public complaints about the inefficiencies and injustices of the traditional court system, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has attracted a wide following, and ADR mechanisms are being established throughout the country.
Abstract
However, popularity and public attention are not sure signs of a quality endeavor. The ADR movement is ill-defined, and the motives of some adherents are questionable. Critics have suggested that some ADR promoters are motivated largely by financial gain. Others have suggested that the use of ADR to serve the poor and oppressed may be motivated by a desire to limit the work of the courts in areas affecting minority interests, civil rights, and civil liberties. In addition, enthusiasm over efficient and inexpensive dispute resolution may override concern for the goals and substantive results of ADR. Despite these concerns, there are a number of promising areas in which ADR can be applied in lieu of traditional litigation. These include labor, family/divorce, and landlord-tenant disputes. It is important that ADR be applied within a body of well-developed law and not be used to resolve important constitutional and public law issues. In addition, adjudication must remain an option of ultimate resort. Finally, continued research and appraisal are needed to ensure the quality and effectiveness of ADR and newly emerging ADR mechanisms. 51 footnotes.