NCJ Number
165440
Journal
Judicature Volume: 80 Issue: 2 Dated: (September-October 1996) Pages: 58-61
Date Published
1996
Length
4 pages
Annotation
Directing disputants to the proper forum in a multi-option justice system requires a "gatekeeper," but a fuller analysis of the merits and potential problems of the gatekeeper concept is needed.
Abstract
In its recent final report, "Justice in the Balance: 2020," the Commission on the Future of the California Courts envisions a justice system that would pull together various dispute resolution options into one multi-option justice center. Such a center would provide a varied menu of dispute resolution processes, including mediation, minitrials, arbitration, early neutral evaluation, expedited proceedings, referee-panel adjudication, administrative law forums, and traditional bench and jury trials. It would operate side by side with a variety of private mechanisms already in place, such as neighborhood dispute resolution centers and private judging. How and by whom disputes are matched with various institutions and procedures in this multi-option justice system is a key issue. Central to the commission's proposals and to multi-option plans under consideration elsewhere is the gatekeeper. The gatekeeper or assessment officer counsels disputing parties about the resources and processes appropriate for them both within the public justice system and outside it, in the array of private processes and agencies available. Proponents of reforms such as the one outlined by the Commission on the Future of the California Courts must show how mechanisms that ensure the preparedness and accountability of gatekeepers are to be put in place and how these reforms would improve the quality of justice. 7 notes