Would ADR Have Saved Romeo and Juliet?

Like many disputes, Romeo and Juliet is a story with no winners; the outcome is destined to be lose-lose. Disputes are an inevitable part of human interaction and people need to learn effective and reasonable ways of dealing with their disputes. The question is how can this be done in a way that leaves people intact. The article compares and contrasts two modes for resolving disputes: adjudication and alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The article looks at what happens when disputes arise-how do problems become disputes and what do people do about them? The role of lawyers as dispute creators as well as dispute resolvers is examined, as is the current state of the adversary system and litigation. The author problematizes the rush of lawyers into the ADR game and questions whether it is in response to decreased billings rather than from a desire to provide more creative, disputant friendly services. The author argues that ADR is not the great panacea it has been touted to be. It clearly has a place in disputes but it is as imperfect as any other process that exists or could be created. Because disputes arise from human interaction, there may be as many types of dispute resolutions as there are people. Imperfect people will create imperfect and fallible processes. Those who seek to assist in dispute resolution must accept that their role is one of assistance, not control. Lawyers are not necessarily well suited to this role. It is incumbent on those who wish to engage in the service of dispute resolution to recognize their own situatedness and interests