Smith observed that this hybrid approach between presumptively mandatory referrals and judicial encouragement of voluntary consent may ultimately result in courtwide implementation of a new case-selection process, developed in conjunction with attorneys on the court's CJRA advisory panel. It is better to have fewer cases in the program and deliver a higher quality service. In the exchange that follows, Stanley and Smith discuss other issues that their courts faced in planning and implementing ADR programs. ADR, as we define it, includes both settlement assistance and case-management assistance. One ADR process, the magistrate judge settlement conference, is conducted by judicial officers.
Institutional involvement is what's key here.
The D.C. District Court's objective in launching its program in 1989 was not just to control its docket or to reduce its caseload. Northern California's goal was the same. The primary motivation was to provide better service to litigants by reducing cost and delay in civil cases and, hopefully, producing better outcomes in some cases. Better outcomes can include assisting the parties to develop creative solutions that a judge could not order, such as a new joint venture in a business case, a product-licensing agreement in a patent case, or an individualized benefits package in an employment termination case. Of course, reducing cost and delay to litigants also has a positive impact on court cost and delay.