Alternative Dispute Resolution

Historically courts are a place where people bring their conflicts. As early as 1850, Abraham Lincoln cautioned about litigation excesses, and advised compromise. In Court, parties ultimately find a resolution to their conflicts, but in some cases, emotions and hostilities, result in difficult resolutions.

Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, among others, suggested it is the legal system's responsibility to seek the most agreeable solution for both parties. Conventional methods such as a trial are a perfectly acceptable means to achieve this goal. However, in 1984, the Superior Court instituted an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program which provides for multidoor access to the resolution of conflict. Today, nearly 90% of all cases which are filed never see the inside of a courtroom; those cases which have merit are usually settled for a mutually acceptable amount.

Under the amended Civil Rule 16 (effective March 1, 2008) every civil case is subject compulsory ADR.

The Superior Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution Program enables parties who agree on a type or stipulate to a type of ADR to use any of the available three forms of ADR—arbitration, mediation or neutral assessment—to reach a resolution to the parties' controversy. If the parties cannot agree upon a form of ADR, mediation is the mandated form.