Mandatory Court-Annexed Alternative Dispute Resolution in the United States Federal Courts: Panacea or Pandemic?1

By Ward, Ettie | St. John's Law Review, Winter 2007 | Go to article overview

Mandatory Court-Annexed Alternative Dispute Resolution in the United States Federal Courts: Panacea or Pandemic?1


Ward, Ettie, St. John's Law Review


INTRODUCTION

It is almost exactly thirty years since the pivotal American Bar Association-sponsored Pound Conference, which heralded the modern era of alternative dispute resolution ("ADR") in the courts. At that Conference, Professor Frank Sander put forward the concept of the multi-door courthouse.2 Currently, ADR is increasingly an accepted tool of the practitioner both within and outside the court system. Attorneys now market their services in dispute resolution and not solely in trial practice or litigation. Pressure to offer litigation alternatives came initially from clients, but now pressure also comes from overwhelmed court systems and legislative mandates.

Given the rapid expansion of ADR in the United States and in international dispute resolution over the last thirty years, one might expect that an obituary for litigation is the only appropriate response to developments in this area, or, to reword a quote by William Shakespeare: "I come to bury [litigation,] not to praise [it]."3 However, my experience and biases lead me to a more nuanced, less pithy, more equivocal, and certainly less literary, statement:

I come to report on the purported demise of litigation, but before nailing the coffin shut, we need to reflect on the benefits litigation may provide in some cases and recognize that meshing litigation and ADR may yield unintended consequences that operate to the detriment of both the adversary process and ADR.

What else could one expect from a lawyer/academic? I confess-I am also a recovering litigator; I litigated full-time for eight years. Being an academic has afforded me the luxury of examining procedural rules and litigation processes and behaviors from the vantage point of the ivory tower. For the last decade I have also served as a pro bono mediator in the federal courts for the Eastern District of New York. These different roles and perspectives have not necessarily illuminated answers, but they have certainly provided questions worth further exploration.

Court-annexed ADR is now a settled fixture in federal courts and in many state courts in the United States, as well as in courts in countries around the world.4 However, just because a process has garnered widespread support does not mean that we should not continue to examine how well the process has worked.

Now that ADR is firmly entrenched in the litigation process, what are the benefits it has brought? Is engrafting ADR onto court process entirely a positive development? Are there any negatives? Do we have the necessary information to answer these questions?

Our inquiries should not focus on whether ADR is better than litigation. There is no argument that ADR offers much to disputants in a wide range of disputes. The advantages of a process that is more flexible, more party-directed, and does not require a zero-sum solution are readily apparent and do not need defense.5 Rather, our inquiry should focus on how, if it is, the courts are transforming ADR and how, if it is, ADR is transforming the court system. If we can address those questions, we will have a better understanding of what is transpiring. If we understand what is happening, we can make rational choices as to future programs and shape processes to achieve desired goals.6

This paper addresses the current state of mandatory courtannexed ADR in the United States federal courts. Part I provides a summary overview of how ADR has developed in the federal courts. Part II briefly describes the positions of the proponents of increased ADR in the courts and of those critical of ADR court initiatives. Part III outlines issues that remain to be addressed and suggests possible avenues for empirical research. The conclusion proposes that we maintain continuing oversight and scrutiny of the process and ADR processes designed to operate after the parties enter the courthouse. As others have warned, we may be inadequately factoring in the impact that our ad hoc development and incorporation of ADR practices into the courthouse may have on both the litigation process and ADR. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Mandatory Court-Annexed Alternative Dispute Resolution in the United States Federal Courts: Panacea or Pandemic?1
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.