NCJ Number
165555
Journal
Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution Volume: 10 Issue: 2 Dated: (1995) Pages: 211-265
Date Published
1995
Length
55 pages
Annotation
This overview of the status of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in America considers both the changing attitudes toward ADR and the claims made on behalf of ADR, as well as changing attitudes toward adjudication and its attributes.
Abstract
Following an introductory discussion of the state's attitudes toward alternatives to adjudication, the author profiles Frank Sander's call for a "multi-doored" courthouse, which would match each dispute to an appropriate forum designed to achieve the effective and efficient processing of those types of disputes referred to it. A definition of ADR is followed by a discussion of the attitudes toward and claims made about the nature and quality of both alternative dispute resolution and traditional adjudication. The concluding section discusses the interrelationship between claims made for ADR and views of adjudication. The author notes that for those who envisioned ADR as a forum significantly different from traditional adjudication, they must be concerned about its institutionalization and its transformation into the very adversarial processes that they had hoped to avoid. As courts make ADR their own, this formalization may well undermine the very attributes of ADR that prompted its development. Further, as courts compel ADR, the relationship between ADR and volition weakens, pushing it ever closer to a state-imposed mode of resolution. The outcome of the institutionalization of ADR has modified it to become similar to a stream-lined or reformed version of adjudication. As this century draws to its end, ADR is melding into adjudication, and ADR has narrowed to become a tool to produce contractual agreements among disputants. The focus is shifting from adjudication to resolution. 217 footnotes