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

37 U. Fla. L. Rev. 1 (1985)
Alternative Methods of Dispute Resolution: An Overview

handle is hein.journals/uflr37 and id is 9 raw text is: University of Florida Law Review VOLUME XXXVII WINTER 1985 NUMBER I ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYMPOSIUM ALTERNATIVE METtIODS OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION: AN OVERVIEW FRANK E.A. SANDER* I. INTRODUCTION** Beginning in the late sixties, American society witnessed an extraordinary flowering of interest in alternative forms of dispute settlement. This interest emanated from a wide variety of sources ranging from the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court to corporate general counsel, the organized Bar and various lay groups.' Following a decade or so of virtually unabashed en- thusiasm, serious questions and doubts are now being raised. Additionally, we are slowly accumulating limited data concerning viable models and empirical effects. Hence, this may be an opportune time for evaluating and exploring promising future directions. Perhaps a good place to begin is with some definitions. What exactly do we mean by alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (ADRMs)? Alternative to what? Presumably alternative is used as a substitute for the traditional dispute resolution mechanism, the court. Interestingly enough, however, courts do not resolve most disputes. The literature on dispute processing and dispute transformation has delineated ways in which grievances may be turned into ongoing disputes, and the myriad ways in which disputes may be resolved by means other than court adjudication.2 In fact, disputes that cannot be readily adjusted may be presented initially to a whole host of dispute processors such as arbitrators, mediators, fact-finders or ombudsmen. If the dispute is ultimately filed in court, approximately 90-95 percent of these disputes are settled by negotiation, with little or no court litigation. Hence, the argument for alter- natives is not based on the need to find a substitute for court adjudiciation. * Bussey Professor, Harvard Law School. B.A., 1949, Harvard; LL.B., 1952, Harvard. This paper is a revision of a draft paper prepared for a conference on the lawyer's changing role in dispute settlement, held at Harvard Law School in October 1982. The paper differs somewhat from that delivered at University of Florida College of Law in Fall 1984. 1. J. MARKS, E. JOHNSON, JR. & P. SZANTON, DIsPuTE RESOLUTION IN AMERICA: PROCESSES IN EVOLUTION (Nat'l Inst. for Dispute Resolution 1984). 2. Felstiner, Abel & Sarat, 7he Emergence & Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming, Claim- ing, 15 L. & Soc'Y REv. 631 (1980-81); Galanter, Justice in Many Rooms, 19 J. oF LEGAL PLURALISM 1 (1981).

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