ADR?

In her Hamlyn Lectures, Judging Civil Justice, in December Dame Hazel Glenn, Professor of Socio-legal Studies at University College London, considered developments in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) policy and practice in civil justice over the last decade and the role and influence of the judiciary, in particular, in relation to mediation. Drawing on research findings from England and abroad, she considered why the judiciary and government have been vigorously promoting mediation, and what mediation offers as compared with traditional settlement and adjudication. Mediation, she said, is not about just settlement; it is just about settlement. She observed that although the Woolf report was called ‘Access to Justice’ some commentators have argued that the purpose of the reforms was to provide more access and less justice. In her view modern justice reform was about neither more access nor more justice, but was simply about diverting cases from the courts and legal aid. ADR had been used as an excuse to save public money. She continued: ‘The push for less law is supported by the growing ADR profession which professes a mission to rid society of conflict but which is more interested in the profits to be made from large commercial dispute settlement than the small change of the county courts.’