Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Access to Justice: Is ADR a Help or Hindrance?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Future of Civil Litigation

Abstract

The Access to Justice movement and the Alternative Dispute Resolution movement have shaped the way we perceive the role and functioning of courts in society. Both movements have criticised the courts for failing to provide precise, real and achievable justice for citizens. The third “wave” of the Access to Justice movement has emphasised ADR as a tool for providing better dispute resolution processes resulting in better outcomes. Court-connected mediation has been presented as a key solution, but it has mainly failed its promises, sometimes even reducing real access to justice. In this text, the reasons why ADR in general and court-connected mediation in particular has failed its task are discussed. Then the main conditions for ADR providing increased rather than decreased access to justice are discussed. The need for understanding that ADR consists of a range of different types of dispute resolution mechanisms, the need for dispute resolution system design and the need for appropriate regulation for each type of dispute resolution process are highlighted as the most important preconditions for releasing the potential of ADR as a tool to provide access to justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cappelletti (1993), pp. 282–283.

  2. 2.

    Cappelletti (1993).

  3. 3.

    Cappelletti and Garth (1978).

  4. 4.

    Ervasti (2004).

  5. 5.

    Rhode (2004), pp. 3–23 and Storskrubb and Ziller (2007), pp. 188–195.

  6. 6.

    Deutsch (2006).

  7. 7.

    Cappelletti (1993) and Rhode (2004).

  8. 8.

    See inter alia Menkel-Meadow (2000, 2006) and Zariski (2010).

  9. 9.

    Menkel-Meadow (2000, 2005).

  10. 10.

    Menkel-Meadow (2001), p. 979.

  11. 11.

    See e.g. Sander (1976). Frank Sander is considered the father of the idea.

  12. 12.

    These goals are clearly stated in the government bills in the Nordic countries, see the Dansih Report no. 1481/2005 on court-connected mediation, the Finnish Hallituksen esitys HE 284/2010 and the Norwegian NOU 2001:32.

  13. 13.

    Christie (1977).

  14. 14.

    See e.g. Menkel-Meadow (2006) and Menkel-Meadow (2001).

  15. 15.

    See e.g. Kovach (2004), pp. 6–18 and Moore (2003), pp. 6–14.

  16. 16.

    Waldman (1997).

  17. 17.

    Menkel-Meadow (2012).

  18. 18.

    Gerencser (1998) and Love and Kovach (2000).

  19. 19.

    Wissler (2004), pp. 67–68.

  20. 20.

    See e.g. McAdoo and Hinshaw (2002). See Mykland (2010) for the Norwegian reality of mediation.

  21. 21.

    Mykland (2010), Adrian (2012) and Knoff (2001).

  22. 22.

    Galanter (1985), p. 1.

  23. 23.

    Lande (1997), p. 840.

  24. 24.

    See also Cappelletti (1993), p. 287.

  25. 25.

    Among others Galanter and Cahill (1994) and Menkel-Meadow (1985).

  26. 26.

    Fiss (1984).

  27. 27.

    Cappelletti (1974).

  28. 28.

    Dalberg-Larsen (2009), pp. 118–121.

  29. 29.

    Lande (2007), Oberman (2008), Gerencser (1998), p. 857 ff., Menkel-Meadow (1997) and Fuller (1971).

  30. 30.

    Wissler (2004).

  31. 31.

    Nolan-Haley (1999, 2009), Welsh (2001) and Oberman (2008).

  32. 32.

    Adrian (2012), pp. 311–317 and Knoff (2001), p. 1165.

  33. 33.

    Leipold (2008), p. 78.

  34. 34.

    See Chap. 6 in this volume.

  35. 35.

    Nolan-Haley (1999).

  36. 36.

    Engler (1999).

  37. 37.

    Menkel-Meadow (2012) and Love and Kovach (2000).

  38. 38.

    Norwegian Supervisory committee for judges case 21/11 of 14 July 2011, Mykland (2010) and Adrian (2012).

  39. 39.

    See among others Lande (1997), Love and Kovach (2000), Oberman (2008) and Menkel-Meadow (2012).

  40. 40.

    Sander and Goldberg (1994).

  41. 41.

    Sander (1976).

  42. 42.

    Lande (2007) and Menkel-Meadow (2012).

  43. 43.

    See e.g. Tesler (2008).

  44. 44.

    Galanter (1985), pp. 8–12.

References

  • Adrian L (2012) Mellem retssag og rundbords samtale: retsmægling i teori og praksis. Jurist- og Økonomforbundets forlag, København

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappelletti M (1974) Legal aid in Europe: a turmoil. Am Bar Assoc J 60:206–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappelletti M (1993) Alternative dispute resolution processes within the framework of the world-wide access-to-justice movement. Modern Law Rev 56:282–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cappelletti M, Garth B (1978) Access to justice: the worldwide movement to make rights effective. A general report. In: Cappelletti M, Garth B (eds) Access to justice a world survey , vol 1. Sijthoff and Hoordhoff, Alphenaandernrijn, pp 1–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Christie N (1977) Conflicts as property. Br J Criminol 17:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalberg-Larsen J (2009) Mægling, ret og samfund. Jurist- og økonomforbundets forlag, København

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch M (2006) Justice and conflict. In: Deutsch M et al (eds) The handbook of conflict resolution, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Engler R (1999) And justice for all—including the unrepresented poor: revisiting the roles of the judges, mediators, and clerks. Fordham Law Rev 67:1987–2070

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervasti K (2004) Käräjäoikeuksien sovintomenettely: empiirinen tutkimus sovinnon edistämisestä riitaprosessissa. Oikeuspoliittinen tutkimuslaitos, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiss O (1984) Against settlement . Yale Law J 93:1073–1090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller L (1971) Mediation – its forms and functions. South Calif Law Rev 44:305–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Galanter M (1985) ‘… A Settlement Judge, not a Trial Judge:’ judicial mediation in the United States. J Law Soc 12:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galanter M, Cahill M (1994) ‘Most Cases Settle’: judicial promotion and regulation of settlements. Standford Law Rev 46:1339–1391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerencser A (1998) Alternative dispute resolution has morphed into mediation . Florida Law Rev 50:843–865

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoff R (2001) Evalueringa av prøveordningen med rettsmekling. In: NOU 2001: 32 Appendix 3, pp 1133–1207

    Google Scholar 

  • Kovach K (2004) Mediation . Principles and practice, 3rd edn. West, St. Paul

    Google Scholar 

  • Lande J (1997) How will lawyering and mediation practices transform each other? Florida State University Law Rev 24:839–901

    Google Scholar 

  • Lande J (2007) Principles for policymaking about collaborative law and other ADR practices. Ohio State J Disp Res 22:619–706

    Google Scholar 

  • Leipold D (2008) Oral and written elements within the introductory phase of civil procedure. In: Carpi F, Ramos M (eds) Oralidad y Escritura en un Proceso Civil Eficiente. Universitat de València, Valencia

    Google Scholar 

  • Love L, Kovach K (2000) ADR: an eclectic array of processes, rather than one eclectic process. J Disp Res 2000:295–307

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdoo B, Hinshaw A (2002) Challenge of institutionalizing alternative dispute resolution: attorney perspectives on the effect of rule 17 on civil litigation in Missouri. Mo Law Rev 67:473

    Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow C (1985) For and against settlement . UCLA Law Rev 33:485–514

    Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow C (1997) When dispute resolution begets disputes of its own. UCLA Law Rev 44:1871–1933

    Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow C (2000) Mothers and fathers of intervention: the intellectual founders of ADR. Ohio State J Disp Res 16:1–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow C (2001) Ethics in ADR. Fordham Urban Law J 28:979–990

    Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow C (2005) Roots and inspirations: a brief history of the foundations of dispute resolution. In: Moffitt M, Bordone R (eds) The handbook of dispute resolution. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 13–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow C (2006) Why hasn’t the world gotten to yes? Negotiation J 22:485–503

    Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow C (2012) American report: informal, formal and “Semi-Formal” justice in the United States. In: Maleshin D (ed) Civil procedure in cross-cultural dialogue: Eurasia context. Statut, Moscow, pp 90–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore C (2003) The mediation process, 3rd revised and updated edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Mykland S (2010) Særmøter som rasjonelle myter? Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap 123:288–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolan-Haley J (1999) Informed consent in mediation . Notre Dame Law Rev 74:775–814

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolan-Haley J (2009) Mediation exceptionality. Fordham Law Rev 78:1247–1264

    Google Scholar 

  • NOU 2001: 32 Rett på sak. Lov om tvisteløsning (tvisteloven)

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberman S (2008) Style vs. model: why quibble? Pepperdine Disp Res Law J 9:1–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhode D (2004) Access to justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sander F (1976) The multi-door courthouse. Barrister 3:18–21 and 40–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Sander F, Goldberg S (1994) Fitting the forum to the fuss. Negotiation J 10:49–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Storskrubb E, Ziller J (2007) Access to justice in European comparative law. In: Francioni F (ed) Access to justice as a human right. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 177–203

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tesler P (2008) Collaborative family law, the new lawyer, and deep resolution of divorce-related conflicts. J Disp Res 2008:83–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldman E (1997) Identifying the role of social norms in mediation . Hastings Law J 48:703–769

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh N (2001) The thinning vision of self-determination in court-connected mediation . Harv Negotiation Law J 6:1–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Wissler R (2004) The effectiveness of court-connected dispute resolution in civil cases. Confl Res Q 22:55–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Zariski A (2010) A theory matrix for mediators. Negotiation J 26:203–235

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, UiT, The Arctic University of Norway, 9037, Tromsø, Norway

    Anna Nylund

Authors
  1. Anna Nylund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Nylund .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. JPS, University of Örebro, Örebro, Sweden

    Laura Ervo

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway

    Anna Nylund

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nylund, A. (2014). Access to Justice: Is ADR a Help or Hindrance?. In: Ervo, L., Nylund, A. (eds) The Future of Civil Litigation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04465-1_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation