With these words of prophecy the Commission to Study the Future of Maine's Courts launched its discussion of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Although conceding that “the adversary process ... has served the people of the state well” and acknowledging that “the state must continue to provide a forum for forceful advocacy that produces a definite and binding judicial decision” the Commission asked the Maine judicial and legislative branches to embrace ADR. For the last dozen years, the Author has been the Supreme Judicial Court's (SJC's) liaison to its ADR Planning and Implementation Committee and Chair of the Court's Advisory Committee to the Court ADR Service (CADRES). In this Article, he summarizes the arguments for and against court-connected ADR, describes and assesses the State's various experiments with ADR, with special emphasis on the State's recent implementation of mandatory ADR in the Superior Court, and concludes with some recommendations for the future.
Howard H. Dana Jr.,
Court-Connected Alternative Dispute Resolution in Maine,
Me. L. Rev.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol57/iss2/4