About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


11 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 297 (1996)
Reflections on Judicial ADR and the Multi-Door Courthouse at Twenty: Fait Accompli, Failed Overture, or Fledgling Adulthood

handle is hein.journals/ohjdpr11 and id is 317 raw text is: Reflections on Judicial ADR and the Multi-Door Courthouse at Twenty: Fait Accompli, Failed Overture, or Fledgling Adulthood? JEFFREY W. STEMPEL* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION: THE ADJUDICATORY LANDSCAPE AS VIEWED FROM THREE SCHWARTZ LECTURES I. ADR HISTORY AND CAVEATS FOR ANALYSIS A. The Development of the Modern ADR Movement B. Sander's Multi-Door Courthouse as the Unifying ADR Initiative 1. The Nature of the Dispute 2. The Relationship between the Disputants 3. The Amount in Dispute 4. Cost 5. Speed C. Caveats for Discussing and Evaluating ADR 1. Distinguish Between Old ADR and New ADR 2. Distinguish Between ADR That Brokers Settlement and ADR That Acts as a Surrogate for Adjudication 3. Address the Political and Distributive Issues Forthrightly 4. Distinguish Between Private, Public, Voluntary, and Involuntary Means of Conflict Resolution 5. Appreciate the Extent to Which Metaphor Can Distort Analysis Professor of Law, Florida State University College of Law. Special thanks to: Ann McGinley, Liz Scheider, Roger Haydock, David Herr, Judge Raymond Broderick; and to the Conference organizers Nancy Rogers, Charlie Wilson, Laura Williams; and to the Conference participants, whose insights and provocative presentations run throughout this article. Undoubtedly, at least half of this diverse crew of scholars will disagree with my assessments. Thanks also to Dean Donald J. Weidner, Jean Sternlight, Sharon Press, and my colleagues for financial and intellectual support, including summer research support that aided in the preparation of this article.