ADR programs have had only limited impact on court caseloads

Evidence

Because the vast majority of civil cases are settled prior to trial, the parties using ADR might not have gone to trial, even if they had not been referred to an ADR program. Finally, ADR programs may not conclusively resolve the cases referred to them. When disputants cannot reach an agreement in mediation, they may take their dispute to court. When an arbitrator renders a decision in courtannexed arbitration, the losing party has the option of taking the case to court, although relatively few elect to do so. In sum, ADR programs have had only a limited impact on court caseloads. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1183

Categorization

• DEFINE: Establishes the causal logic behind why ADR’s caseload impact is limited: many referred cases would have settled anyway, and ADR outcomes are often nonfinal.
• XREF: connects to: The ADR movement arose in the 1970s to ease court caseloads and costs — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1163; Most ADR programs receive under 500 annual referrals, limiting caseload relief — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1182; ADR’s twin promises of greater access and reduced court caseloads may be mutually contradictory. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2362

Broader Connections

• ADR’s twin promises of greater access and reduced court caseloads may be mutually contradictory. #complicates (0.82) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2362