NCJ Number
142175
Journal
Trial Volume: 29 Issue: 4 Dated: (April 1993) Pages: 35-36,38-39
Date Published
1993
Length
4 pages
Annotation
After examining the status of acceptance of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) by the courts and the legal community, this article discusses how ADR can best be implemented.
Abstract
The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 requires each Federal district court to develop a civil justice delay-and- expense-reduction plan, including consideration of the use of ADR. This law and the factors that spawned its enactment have facilitated a general acceptance of ADR as a means of improving access to and reducing the cost of mechanisms for the resolution of civil disputes. The primary issues now being considered with respect to ADR pertain to how best to structure and implement ADR structures. Voluntarism should be a basic principle of all nonbinding forms of ADR, especially mediation, but also of arbitration. Mandatory ADR coupled with user fees would raise troublesome issues about access to justice. Judges should continue to operate settlement conferences that may be mandatory. Courts can also apply more effective case-management techniques, such as differentiated case management. Courts can provide as much support, encouragement, and education to litigants about ADR options as possible. There is also a place for ADR in the private sector, outside of but complementary to the adjudicatory world of courts. Most noteworthy is the systematic incorporation of ADR into the business and legal fabric of the Nation, most notably in the resolution of contract disputes. 7 notes