Which way to true justice?--Appropriate dispute resolution (ADR) and adversarial legalism.

Adaptation from lectures at the University of Nebraska College of Law, November 19-20, 2003 Recently, a former law student of mine sent me a book titled Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law by Robert A. Kagan, Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California at Berkeley. ... Professor Kagan coined a new term "adversarial legalism," which means policymaking, policy implementation, and dispute resolution through lawyer-dominated litigation. ... Professor Kagan defines adversarial legalism as a method of policymaking and dispute resolution with two salient characteristics: ... In addition to the suggestions already commented upon, Appropriate Dispute Resolution - ADR (sometimes referred to as Alternative Dispute Resolution) - is one way out of excessive adversarial legalism. By ADR, I am referring to processes such as: negotiation; early neutral evaluation, where a neutral third person evaluates a case's worth before trial; mediation, where a neutral third person helps the parties to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution; and arbitration, where a neutral third person is selected to resolve a dispute. ... The question is not "for or against" settlement (since settlement has become the "norm" for our system), but when, how, and under what circumstances should cases be settled? When do our legal system, our citizenry, and the parties in particular disputes need formal legal adjudication, and when are their respective interests served by settlement, whether public or private? (Abstract from Author)