About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

99 Harv. L. Rev. 668 (1985-1986)
Alternative Dispute Resolution: Panacea or Anathema

handle is hein.journals/hlr99 and id is 686 raw text is: COMMENTARY ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION: PANACEA OR ANATHEMA? Hany T. Edwards* The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) movement has seen an extraordinary transformation in the last ten years. Little more than a decade ago, only a handful of scholars and attorneys perceived the need for alternatives to litigation. The ADR idea was seen as nothing more than a hobbyhorse for a few offbeat scholars. Today, with the rise of public complaints about the inefficiencies and injustices of our traditional court systems, the ADR movement has attracted a band- wagon following of adherents. ADR is no longer shackled with the reputation of a cult movement. At worst, ADR is merely a highly fashionable idea, now viewed as worthy of serious discussions among practitioners and scholars of widely diverse backgrounds and professional interests. At best, the ADR movement reflects a serious new effort to design workable and fair alternatives to our traditional judicial systems. There can be no doubt, however, that the ADR movement has drawn wide public attention. During the past five years, there have been literally scores of books, articles, conferences, bulletins, newsletters, and new course offerings on ADR. Mechanisms for alternative dispute resolution are now being established throughout the United States, with well over one hundred and fifty minor dispute mediation centers in almost forty states,' and court-annexed arbitration is now actively used in both state and federal courts.2 These are indeed heady times for those in the ADR movement. There is reason for concern, however, that the bandwagon may be on a runaway course. Popularity and public interest are not sure signs of a quality en- deavor. This is certainly true of ADR, because the movement is ill- defined and the motives of some ADR adherents are questionable. It appears that some people have joined the ADR bandwagon, without regard for its purposes or consequences, because they see it as a fast (and sometimes interesting) way to make a buck. It has also been suggested that some of those people who promote ADR as a means * Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Cornell University, B.S., 1962; University of Michigan, J.D., x965. The author wishes to acknowledge the research assistance given him by Charles Blanchard in the preparation of this Commentary. 1 Edelman, Institutionalizing Dispute Resolution Alternatives, 9 JUST. SYS. J. 134, 136 (1984). 2 Sixteen states and ten federal district courts have authorized court-ordered arbitration programs. See Background and Status, DISPUTE RESOLUTION F., Aug. i985, at 4.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most