NCJ Number
132984
Journal
Judicature Volume: 75 Issue: 1 Dated: (June-July 1991) Pages: 34-40
Date Published
1991
Length
7 pages
Annotation
Reference is made to the article of Judge Raymond Broderick, "Court Annexed Compulsory Arbitration: It Works," in this argument against mandatory court-annexed alternative dispute resolution (ADR) programs in Federal district courts.
Abstract
ADR programs deny litigants their traditional "day in court," and it is unfair to describe them as different only in some negligible or unimportant degree from traditional trials. An honest cost-benefit analysis may reveal that ADR programs actually do not reduce the cost of litigation and that courts that do not utilize ADR programs cost less to operate than those that do. Coerced settlement is the primary objective of these compulsory ADRs, despite Judge Broderick's insistence that his program in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania "was not designed primarily as a settlement program..." On the basis that managing ADR programs and conducting settlement conferences can consume more time than simply trying the cases, there is no demonstrated need for these court-annexed ADR programs.