NCJ Number
111402
Date Published
1985
Length
56 pages
Annotation
This paper examines several forms of court-annexed alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to clarify how these processes work, how they differ from traditional adjudication, and how they relate to adjudication and to each other; it presents some tentative answers to the policy questions they raise.
Abstract
The ADR processes examined are court-ordered arbitration, private judging under a general order of reference, summary jury trial, settlement special masters, neutral factfinding by a court-appointed expert, and phased 'costing-out' settlement mechanisms. These six ADR mechanisms offer the greatest promise of general use, and together they present virtually the full range of issues posed by public use of ADR. The paper's first section presents a conceptual framework within which to fit each of the six ADR processes as well as the familiar 'primary' processes of adjudication, arbitration, mediation, and negotiation. This organizing structure is necessary to associate ADR with familiar dispute resolution processes. The framework clarifies the essential characteristics of each process and their peculiar nuances. The paper then elaborates on each ADR process, describing its operation and addressing associated legal and policy issues. The next section considers ways courts may further intergrate these and other alternatives into a complete judicial process to create the 'multidoor' courthouse. The final section addresses the goals of the ADR movement and the reasons why, in relatively rare instances, people go to court. This discussion formulates answers to the general policy issues and appraises the extent to which the judicial use of ADR meets parties' needs and advances the goals of the justice system. 145 footnotes.