NCJ Number
93236
Journal
Clearinghouse Review Dated: (December 1979) Pages: 569-583
Date Published
1979
Length
15 pages
Annotation
In examining the impact of nonjudicial dispute-resolution mechanisms on justice for the poor, this study considers emerging models for processing disputes, divergent objectives of alternative forums, the potential effects of nonjudicial dispute resolution, and the significance of nonjudicial forums for legal aid services.
Abstract
Techniques for resolving disputes short of litigation include mediation and arbitration, with variations being conciliation, fact-finding, and a combination of mediation and arbitration. Applications of these techniques are used in community disputes, dispute centers, institutional grievance procedures, consumer conciliation, government-sponsored mediation, consumer arbitration, and court-annexed arbitration. Objectives of alternative forums include reduction in court caseload, increase in citizen access to dispute resolution forums, resolution of conflict at an early less problematic stage, and the furthering of social, economic, and political conceptions of equal justice. The latter objective is of crucial importance to the poor and to those who represent them. Efforts to increase social and economic justice necessarily focus on the interaction between individuals and large organizations such as manufacturers, landlords, schools, and welfare departments. This involves equalizing the power of the parties in the settlement of disputes. Provision of advocates and experts can compensate for disparities in power between disputing parties. Advocates may be lawyers, paralegals, or friends. One measure of the usefulness of alternative forums in resolving disputes that involve large organizations is the degree to which alternatives can achieve solutions to systematic social or economic problems; yet, the ability of different types of forums to facilitate general solutions to classes of problems has received little attention. Few empirical data exist on the results of dispute resolution in different types of forums or on the subjective perceptions of the disputants regarding the process or outcome. Other issues pertaining to obtaining equal justice in alternative forums are the avoidance of the outside imposition of rules, community empowerment, and self-sufficiency. Regarding the impact of nonjudicial forums on the role of legal aid services, it appears that they may release legal services lawyers and paralegals from their preoccupation with individual complaints and enable them to focus a greater portion of their energies and resources on solutions to systemic problems. Given this possibility, legal services should become involved in the development of alternative forums. Fifty-six footnotes are provided.