Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Challenges of Participatory Justice for Public Adjudication

  • Chapter
Foundations of Civil Justice

  • 626 Accesses

Abstract

Another important theme to consider in civil justice is the convergence of a number of phenomena identified in civil procedure: the move toward alternative dispute resolution (ADR), the preference for settlement, the shifting of the role of the judge toward managerial judging, and the shifting of the role of lawyers toward conflict resolution advocacy. These phenomena all point to a discernible move away from justice by adjudication toward “participatory” justice, as well as a move away from public justice toward more private forms of justice. By private forms of justice, we mean both dispute resolution mechanisms that intervene only between parties without binding effect on third parties, as well as the rise of legal norms produced by private entities, which opposes the historically constructed idea that the State has a monopoly over legal norms and that legal norms are those which have been produced in a public forum. We offer an overview of some of the arguments put forward to justify and challenge these changes in dispute resolution processes, the role of judicial actors, and that of the State in the administration of justice. We also try to identify the values that may underlie these shifts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See generally Jean-François Roberge, La justice participative : changer le milieu juridique par une culture intégrative de règlement des différends (2011).

  2. 2.

    Marc Galanter, The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and State Courts, 1 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 459, 460, 477, 483, 506, 514–17 (2004).

  3. 3.

    Articles presented during two symposiums, held in 2004 and 2006 and focusing on the vanishing trial phenomenon, were reproduced in 1 J. Empirical Legal Stud. (2004) and 2006 J. Disp. Resol.

  4. 4.

    Gillian K. Hadfield, Where Have All the Trials Gone? Settlements, Nontrial Adjudications, and Statistical Artifacts in the Changing Disposition of Federal Civil Cases, 1 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 705, 705–13, 716, 728–29, 733 (2004). On early resolutions, see Judith Resnik, Failing Faith: Adjudicatory Procedure in Decline, 53 U. Chi. L. Rev. 494, 511–12 (1986).

  5. 5.

    Herbert M. Kritzer, Disappearing Trials? A Comparative Perspective, 1 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 735, 735 (2004).

  6. 6.

    Id. at 742, 747, 749.

  7. 7.

    Robert Dingwall & Emilie Cloatre, Vanishing Trials? An English Perspective, 2006 J. Disp. Resol. 51, 51, 62–64, 70.

  8. 8.

    See, e.g., Judith Resnik, Managerial Judges, 96 Harv. L. Rev. 374, 409 (1982); Resnik, supra note 4, at 538.

  9. 9.

    Resnik explores the reasons that have led to a rejection of adjudication. Notably, she argues that changes in the federal rules and in the docket of federal courts have “increased visibility of adversarial behavior” and “revealed practices that make faith in its output problematic,” such as “inept or dishonest lawyers” who “waste the resources of clients and of the courts.” For example, opportunities for adversarial behaviour during pretrial are increased as litigation becomes more protracted and complex. “As federal judges self-consciously shift roles from adjudicator to case-manager to settler, as judges call for the increased use of summary judgment and for other quick solutions, judges demonstrate their own sense of the marginal utility—and perhaps of the futility—of full-blown adjudication.” Resnik further notes the “[c]ourt’s hostility to lawyers and to the procedures they engender.” According to Resnik, “[t]wo popular approaches—managerial judging and alternative dispute resolution—further illustrate the declining interest in adjudication.” See generally Resnik, supra note 4, at 523–24, 529–30, 534.

  10. 10.

    Judith Resnik, Whither and Whether Adjudication?, 86 B.U.L. Rev. 1101, 1123 (2006); Resnik, supra note 4, at 497–98, 539–40, 544.

  11. 11.

    Hazel Genn, Judging Civil Justice 80 (2010).

  12. 12.

    Thomas J. Stipanowich, ADR and the “Vanishing Trial”: The Growth and Impact of “Alternative Dispute Resolution”, 1 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 843, 845 (2004).

  13. 13.

    See, e.g., Julie Macfarlane, Dispute Resolution: Readings and Case Studies (1999).

  14. 14.

    Eve Hill, Alternative Dispute Resolution in a Feminist Voice, 5 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 337, 343 n.34 (1990).

  15. 15.

    Robert F. Peckham, A Judicial Response to the Cost of Litigation: Case Management, Two-Stage Discovery Planning and Alternative Dispute Resolution, 37 Rutgers L. Rev. 253, 271–74 (1985).

  16. 16.

    Galanter, supra note 2, at 483–84, 499–500.

  17. 17.

    Macfarlane, supra note 13, at xv.

  18. 18.

    Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Portia in a Different Voice: Speculations on a Women’s Lawyering Process, 1 Berkeley Women’s L.J. 39, 52–53 (1984). See also Janet Rifkin, Mediation from a Feminist Perspective: Promise and Problems, 2 Law & Inequality 21, 21 (1984).

  19. 19.

    Judith Resnik, Many Doors? Closing Doors? Alternative Dispute Resolution and Adjudication, 10 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 211, 262–63 (1995); Hugh F. Landerkin & Andrew J. Pirie, What’s the Issue? Judicial Dispute Resolution in Canada, 22 Law in Context 25, 40, 44–45 (2005).

  20. 20.

    William W. Schwarzer, Managing Civil Litigation: The Trial Judge’s Role, 61 Judicature 400, 406 (1978).

  21. 21.

    Landerkin & Pirie, supra note 19, at 47.

  22. 22.

    See generally Carrie Menkel-Meadow, For and Against Settlements: Uses and Abuses of the Mandatory Settlement Conference, 33 UCLA L. Rev. 485, 486, 489–90 (1985). See also Landerkin & Pirie, supra note 19, at 44; Resnik, supra note 4, at 536–37; Julie Macfarlane, The New Lawyer: How Settlement Is Transforming the Practice of Law 20 (2008); Elizabeth G. Thornburg, The Managerial Judge Goes to Trial, 44 U. Richmond L. Rev. 1261 (2010).

  23. 23.

    Genn, supra note 11, at 81.

  24. 24.

    Resnik, supra note 10, at 1114.

  25. 25.

    Hadfield, supra note 4, at 706.

  26. 26.

    Trevor C.W. Farrow, Civil Justice, Privatization, and Democracy (2014).

  27. 27.

    Judith Resnik, Revising the Canon: Feminist Help in Teaching Procedure, 61 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1181, 1196 (1993); Elizabeth M. Schneider, Gendering and Engendering Process, 61 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1223, 1231 (1993).

  28. 28.

    Judith Resnik, On the Bias: Feminist Reconsiderations of the Aspirations for Our Judges, 61 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1877, 1942 (1988).

  29. 29.

    Hill, supra note 14, at 353, 372 (citing Frances E. Olsen, The Family and the Market: A Study of Ideology and Legal Reform, 96 Harv. L. Rev. 1497, 1542 (1983)); Harold Hongju Koh, Two Cheers for Feminist Procedure, 61 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1201, 1206 (1993); Rifkin, supra note 18, at 22.

  30. 30.

    Schneider, supra note 27, at 1231.

  31. 31.

    Fabien Gélinas, Conflict Resolution and Sustainability Disputes: Authority and Consensus in the Shadow of Law, in Sustainable Development and the Law: People, Environment, Culture 21 (Shi-Ling Hsu & Patrick A. Molinari eds., 2008).

  32. 32.

    Julie Macfarlane & John Manwaring, Reconciling Professional Legal Education with the Evolving (Trial-less) Reality of Legal Practice, 2006 J. Disp. Resol. 253, 257 (2006).

  33. 33.

    Hill, supra note 14, at 343 n.34.

  34. 34.

    Landerkin & Pirie, supra note 19, at 25, 42.

  35. 35.

    Id. at 39.

  36. 36.

    Id. at 39. See also, Menkel-Meadow, supra note 22, at 488.

  37. 37.

    Resnik, supra note 4, at 536.

  38. 38.

    Resnik, supra note 19, at 262–63.

  39. 39.

    Landerkin & Pirie, supra note 19, at 46–47, 58.

  40. 40.

    Regulating Dispute Resolution: ADR and Access to Justice at the Crossroads (Felix Steffek & Hannes Unberath eds., 1st ed. 2013). Chapter 3 is a recent, sophisticated attempt at a finer taxonomy.

  41. 41.

    Marc Galanter & Mia Cahill, “Most Cases Settle”: Judicial Promotion and Regulation of Settlements, 46 Stan. L. Rev. 1339, 1350–60 (1994).

  42. 42.

    Id. at 1351.

  43. 43.

    Menkel-Meadow, supra note 22, at 485–87, 504–505.

  44. 44.

    Owen M. Fiss, Against Settlement, 93 Yale L.J. 1073, 1075, 1086, 1089 (1984). See also Resnik, supra note 10; Dingwall & Cloatre, supra note 7, at 69; Hadfield, supra note 4, at 706; Menkel-Meadow, supra note 22, at 488–89.

  45. 45.

    Fiss, supra note 44 at 1076, 1084–85, 1088; Owen M. Fiss, The History of an Idea, 78 Fordham L. Rev. 1273, 1276–78 (2009); Resnik, supra note 4, at 545.

  46. 46.

    Menkel-Meadow, supra note 22, at 486, 498, 502.

  47. 47.

    Galanter & Cahill, supra note 41, at 1340.

  48. 48.

    See, e.g., Landerkin & Pirie, supra note 19, at 35–36.

  49. 49.

    Menkel-Meadow, supra note 22, at 492, 498, 503.

  50. 50.

    Id. at 493, 512.

  51. 51.

    Galanter, supra note 2, at 515; Marc Galanter, “. . . Settlement Judge, not a Trial Judge”: Judicial Mediation in the United States, 12 J. Law & Soc’y 1, 9 (1985).

  52. 52.

    Menkel-Meadow, supra note 22, at 497.

  53. 53.

    Galanter & Cahill, supra note 41, at 1341–42. In the United States, “the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, notably Rule 16 and Rule 23, have institutionalized and enlarged the role of the judiciary in the settlement process,” Fiss, supra note 45, at 1279. Rule 16 in fact lists “facilitating settlement” as an explicit purpose of pretrial conferences, and proceeds to grant judges the power to “take appropriate action”. Similarly, in Ontario, the purpose of rule 50 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure on pretrial conferences “is to provide an opportunity for any or all of the issues in a proceeding to be settled without a hearing.” Pretrial conferences therefore provide an institutionalized setting within which judges may promote settlement. Moreover, federal rule 68, its state equivalents, and rule 49 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure impose cost consequences for the failure to accept reasonable settlement offers, and therefore, these rules serve as further institutional disincentives to proceed with adjudication. See Fiss, supra note 44, at 1073–74; Menkel-Meadow, supra note 22, at 492; Resnik, supra note 8, at 441–42.

  54. 54.

    Menkel-Meadow, supra note 22, at 506–11.

  55. 55.

    Thornburg, supra note 22, at 1261–62, 1267; Resnik, supra note 8.

  56. 56.

    See, e.g., Wayne D. Brazil, Case Management: The Panacea Has Its Side Effects, 24 Judges’ J. 32 (1985) [hereinafter Brazil, Panacea]; Wayne D. Brazil, Special Masters in Complex Cases: Extending the Judiciary or Reshaping Adjudication?, 53 U. Chi. L. Rev. 394 (1986); Wayne D. Brazil, Improving Judicial Controls over the Pretrial Development of Civil Actions: Model Rules for Case Management and Sanctions, 1981 Am. B. Found. Res. J. 873; Robert F. Peckham, The Federal Judge as a Case Manager: The New Role in Guiding a Case from Filing to Disposition, 69 Cal. L. Rev. 770 (1981); Peckham, supra note 15; Alvin B. Rubin, The Managed Calendar: Some Pragmatic Suggestions about Achieving the Just, Speedy, and Inexpensive Determination of Civil Cases in Federal Courts, 4 Just. Sys. J. 135 (1978); Steven Flanders, Case Management in Federal Courts: Some Controversies and Some Results, 4 Just. Sys. J. 147 (1978); Steven Flanders, Case Management and Court Management in United States District Courts (1977); David Neubauer, Judicial Role and Case Management, 4 Just. Sys. J. 223 (1978); Schwarzer, supra note 20.

  57. 57.

    See, e.g., Resnik, supra note 8; E. Donald Elliott, Managerial Judging and the Evolution of Procedure, 53 U. Chi. L. Rev. 306 (1986); Thornburg, supra note 22.

  58. 58.

    Schwarzer, supra note 20, at 401–402.

  59. 59.

    Flanders, supra note 56, at 162; Peckham, supra note 15, at 253–54; Schwarzer, supra note 20, at 408; Rubin, supra note 56, at 143.

  60. 60.

    Schwarzer, supra note 20, at 401–402.

  61. 61.

    Brazil, Panacea, supra note 56, at 34; Schwarzer, supra note 20, at 401.

  62. 62.

    Schwarzer, supra note 20, at 405–406.

  63. 63.

    Elliott, supra note 57, at 327–31.

  64. 64.

    Resnik, supra note 8, at 424; Brazil, Panacea, supra note 56, at 34.

  65. 65.

    Elliott, supra note 57, at 328.

  66. 66.

    Id. at 317. See also Peckham, supra note 15, at 263–64.

  67. 67.

    Elliott, supra note 57, at 327.

  68. 68.

    Thornburg, supra note 22, at 1269–70.

  69. 69.

    Id. at 1287–88.

  70. 70.

    Id. at 1261–62; Elliott, supra note 57, at 317, 334; Galanter, supra note 2, at 519.

  71. 71.

    Resnik, supra note 8, at 380; Resnik, supra note 28, at 1940–41.

  72. 72.

    Resnik, supra note 8, at 391, 395.

  73. 73.

    Id. at 417.

  74. 74.

    Thornburg, supra note 22, at 1261–62.

  75. 75.

    Elliott, supra note 57, at 308, 323.

  76. 76.

    Id. at 325.

  77. 77.

    Thornburg, supra note 22, at 1265.

  78. 78.

    Elliott, supra note 57, at 308, 318, 331, 334.

  79. 79.

    Id. at 308.

  80. 80.

    Thornburg, supra note 22, at 1287–88, 1310–11; Peckham, supra note 15, at 261; Resnik, supra note 8, at 425–27.

  81. 81.

    Thornburg, supra note 22, at 1264–65 (emphasis added).

  82. 82.

    Id. at 1263–64, 1266, 1280.

  83. 83.

    Id. at 1270, 1280, 1282–83.

  84. 84.

    Peckham, supra note 15, at 260–61, 266–67.

  85. 85.

    Elliott, supra note 57, at 334.

  86. 86.

    Schwarzer, supra note 20, at 401.

  87. 87.

    Galanter, supra note 2, at 520; Thornburg, supra note 22, at 1268.

  88. 88.

    Brazil, Panacea, supra note 56, at 33–34.

  89. 89.

    Peckham, supra note 15, at 254–55.

  90. 90.

    Schwarzer, supra note 20, at 402 (citing Marvin E. Frankel, The Adversary Judge, 54 Texas L. Rev. 465, 468 (1976)).

  91. 91.

    Flanders, supra note 56, at 148–49, 161; Peckham, supra note 15, at 254–55; Resnik, supra note 8, at 382; J.A. Jolowicz, Adversarial and Inquisitorial Models of Civil Procedure, 52 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 281, 289 (2003).

  92. 92.

    Thornburg, supra note 22, at 1269, 1288.

  93. 93.

    Peckham, supra note 15, at 261; Schwarzer, supra note 20, at 403.

  94. 94.

    Jolowicz, supra note 91, at 281, 295; Resnik, supra note 8, at 382.

  95. 95.

    Tamara Relis, Perceptions in Litigation and Mediation: Lawyers, Defendants, Plaintiffs and Gendered Parties (2009). For example, she studies the use of mediation: while disputants were favourable toward mediation, lawyers routinely agreed “not to invite” defendants to mediation in an attempt to avoid it, id. at 10. Interestingly, Poitras, Stimec, and Roberge find that, once parties get to mediation, the presence of a lawyer has no significant effect on the outcome of the mediation, although the lawyer’s attendance does reduce party satisfaction with the mediator and hinder the level of reconciliation. See Jean Poitras, Arnaud Stimec & Jean-François Roberge, The Negative Impact of Attorneys on Mediation Outcomes: A Myth or a Reality?, 26 Negotiation J. 9 (2010).

  96. 96.

    William L.F. Felstiner, Richard L. Abel & Austin Sarat, The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming, Claiming . . ., 15 Law & Soc’y Rev. 631, 648 (1980–81).

  97. 97.

    Macfarlane, supra note 22, at 23, 230.

  98. 98.

    Id. at xii, 97–100, 108–11.

  99. 99.

    Id. at 109–10.

  100. 100.

    Id. at 97–100.

  101. 101.

    Macfarlane & Manwaring, supra note 32, at 258–62.

  102. 102.

    Galanter, supra note 2, at 521–22.

  103. 103.

    Macfarlane & Manwaring, supra note 32, at 254.

  104. 104.

    Galanter, supra note 2, at 521–22.

  105. 105.

    Macfarlane, supra note 22 at 231.

  106. 106.

    Derek C. Bok, A Flawed System of Law Practice and Training, 33 J. Legal Educ. 570, 582–84 (1983).

  107. 107.

    Macfarlane & Manwaring, supra note 32, at 264.

  108. 108.

    Bok, supra note 106, at 582–83. See also Fiss, supra note 44, at 1073; Peckham, supra note 15, at 265.

  109. 109.

    Fiss, supra note 44 at 1089.

  110. 110.

    Duncan Kennedy, Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy, 32 J. Legal Educ. 591, 591, 606–607 (1982); Duncan Kennedy, Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy: A Polemic against the System (2004).

  111. 111.

    Kennedy , supra note 110, at 214–15.

  112. 112.

    See, e.g., Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Ethics Issues in Arbitration and Related Dispute Resolution Processes: What’s Happening and What’s Not, 56 U. Miami L. Rev. 949 (2002); Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Ethics in ADR: The Many “Cs” of Professional Responsibility and Dispute Resolution, 28 Fordham Urb. L.J. 979 (2001); Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and Professionalism in Non-Adversarial Lawyering, 27 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 153 (1999). See also Alvin B. Rubin, A Causerie of Lawyers’ Ethics in Negotiation, 35 La. L. Rev. 577 (1975). Literature reviewed in Trevor C.W. Farrow, Thinking about Dispute Resolution, 41 Alberta L. Rev. 559 (2003); Carrie Menkel-Meadow, The Lawyer as Problem Solver and Third-Party Neutral: Creativity and Non-partisanship in Lawyering, 72 Temp. L. Rev. 785 (1999).

  113. 113.

    Carrie Menkel-Meadow, The Lawyer as Consensus Builder: Ethics for a New Practice, 70 Tenn. L. Rev. 63, 63, 66–67, 75, 83–84, 110, 113 (2002).

  114. 114.

    Alex M. Johnson, Jr., The Underrepresentation of Minorities in the Legal Profession: A Critical Race Theorist’s Perspective, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 1005, 1023–25, 1029, 1034 (1997).

  115. 115.

    Menkel-Meadow, Portia Redux: Another Look at Gender, Feminism, and Legal Ethics, 2 Va. J. Soc. Pol’y & L. 75 (1994).

  116. 116.

    Koh, supra note 29, at 1202–203.

  117. 117.

    Menkel-Meadow, supra note 115, at 86, 103; Menkel-Meadow, supra note 18, at 53–55; Carrie Menkel-Meadow, The Comparative Sociology of Women Lawyers: The “Feminization” of the Legal Profession, 24 Osgoode Hall L.J. 897, 915 (1986); Hill, supra note 14, at 371. Tamara Relis also addresses how gender affects the practice of law. See Relis, supra note 95.

  118. 118.

    Hill, supra note 14, at 341; Rifkin, supra note 18, at 22; Menkel-Meadow, supra note 18, at 52–53.

  119. 119.

    Hill, supra note 14, at 338.

  120. 120.

    Carrie Menkel-Meadow, What’s Gender Got to Do with It? The Politics and Morality of an Ethic of Care, 22 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 265, 286 (1996).

  121. 121.

    Menkel-Meadow, supra note 117, at 915.

  122. 122.

    Susan Moloney Smith, Comment, Diversifying the Judiciary: The Influence of Gender and Race on Judging, 28 U. Richmond L. Rev. 179, 197 (1994); Bertha Wilson, Will Women Judges Really Make a Difference?, 28 Osgoode Hall L.J. 507, 519–20 (1990).

  123. 123.

    Marcia Neave, The Gender of Judging, 2 Psychiatry, Psych. & L. 3, 4 (1995).

  124. 124.

    Menkel-Meadow, supra note 18, at 53.

  125. 125.

    Menkel-Meadow, supra note 117, at 915.

  126. 126.

    Menkel-Meadow, supra note 18, at 53.

  127. 127.

    Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Exploring a Research Agenda of the Feminization of the Legal Profession: Theories of Gender and Social Change, 14 Law & Soc. Inquiry 289, 316 (1989).

References

  • Bok, D. C. (1983). A flawed system of law practice and training. Journal of Legal Education, 33, 570–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brazil, W. D. (1981). Improving judicial controls over the pretrial development of civil actions: Model rules for case management and sanctions. American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 873–965.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brazil, W. D. (1985). Case management: The panacea has its side effects. Judges’ Journal, 24, 32–35, 49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brazil, W. D. (1986). Special masters in complex cases: Extending the judiciary or reshaping adjudication? University of Chicago Law Review, 53, 394–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dingwall, R., & Cloatre, E. (2006). Vanishing trials? An English perspective. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 51–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, E. D. (1986). Managerial judging and the evolution of procedure. University of Chicago Law Review, 53, 306–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrow, T. C. W. (2003). Thinking about dispute resolution. Alberta Law Review, 41, 559–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrow, T. C. W. (2014). Civil justice, privatization, and democracy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felstiner, W. L. F., Abel, R. L., & Sarat, A. (1980–1981). The emergence and transformation of disputes: Naming, blaming, claiming. . . Law & Society Review, 15, 631–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiss, O. M. (1984). Against settlement. Yale Law Journal, 93, 1073–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiss, O. M. (2009). The history of an idea. Fordham Law Review, 78, 1273–1280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanders, S. (1977). Case management and court management in United States District Courts. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanders, S. (1978). Case management in federal courts: Some controversies and some results. Justice System Journal, 4, 147–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, M. E. (1976). The adversary judge. Texas Law Review, 54, 465–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galanter, M. (1985). “. . . Settlement judge, not a trial judge”: Judicial mediation in the United States. Journal of Law & Society, 12, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galanter, M. (2004). The vanishing trial: An examination of trials and related matters in federal and state courts. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1, 459–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galanter, M., & Cahill, M. (1994). “Most cases settle”: Judicial promotion and regulation of settlements. Stanford Law Review, 46, 1339–1391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gélinas, F. (2008). Conflict resolution and sustainability disputes: Authority and consensus in the shadow of law. In S.-L. Hsu & P. A. Molinari (Eds.), Sustainable development and the law: People, environment, culture (pp. 21–37). Montréal: Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genn, H. (2010). Judging civil justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadfield, G. K. (2004). Where have all the trials gone? Settlements, nontrial adjudications, and statistical artifacts in the changing disposition of federal civil cases. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1, 705–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, E. (1990). Alternative dispute resolution in a feminist voice. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 5, 337–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, A. M., Jr. (1997). The underrepresentation of minorities in the legal profession: A critical race theorist’s perspective. Michigan Law Review, 95, 1005–1062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolowicz, J. A. (2003). Adversarial and inquisitorial models of civil procedure. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 52, 281–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, D. (1982). Legal education and the reproduction of hierarchy. Journal of Legal Education, 32, 591–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, D. (2004). Legal education and the reproduction of hierarchy: A polemic against the system. New York: NYU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koh, H. H. (1993). Two cheers for feminist procedure. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 61, 1201–1207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kritzer, H. M. (2004). Disappearing trials? A comparative perspective. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1, 735–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landerkin, H. F., & Pirie, A. J. (2005). What’s the issue? Judicial dispute resolution in Canada. Law in Context, 22, 25–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlane, J. (1999). Dispute resolution: Readings and case studies. Toronto: Emond Montgomery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlane, J. (2008). The new lawyer: How settlement is transforming the practice of law. Vancouver: UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlane, J., & Manwaring, J. (2006). Reconciling professional legal education with the evolving (trial-less) reality of legal practice. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 253–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow, C. (1985a). For and against settlements: Uses and abuses of the mandatory settlement conference. UCLA Law Review, 33, 485–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow, C. (1985b). Portia in a different voice: Speculations on a women’s lawyering process. Berkeley Women’s Law Journal, 1, 39–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow, C. (1986). The comparative sociology of women lawyers: The “feminization” of the legal profession. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 24, 897–918.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow, C. (1989). Exploring a research agenda of the feminization of the legal profession: Theories of gender and social change. Law & Social Inquiry, 14, 289–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow, C. (1994). Portia redux: Another look at gender, feminism, and legal ethics. Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, 2, 75–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow, C. (1996). What’s gender got to do with it? The politics and morality of an ethic of care. New York University Review of Law & Social Change, 22, 265–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow, C. (1999a). Ethics and professionalism in non-adversarial lawyering. Florida State University Law Review, 27, 153–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow, C. (1999b). The lawyer as problem solver and third-party neutral: Creativity and non-partisanship in lawyering. Temple Law Review, 72, 785–809.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow, C. (2001). Ethics in ADR: The many “Cs” of professional responsibility and dispute resolution. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 28, 979–990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow, C. (2002a). Ethics issues in arbitration and related dispute resolution processes: What’s happening and what’s not. University of Miami Law Review, 56, 949–1007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow, C. (2002b). The lawyer as consensus builder: Ethics for a new practice. Tennessee Law Review, 70, 63–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moloney Smith, S. (1994). Diversifying the judiciary: The influence of gender and race on judging. University Richmond Law Review, 28, 179–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neave, M. (1995). The gender of judging. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 2, 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neubauer, D. (1978). Judicial role and case management. Justice System Journal, 4, 223–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, F. E. (1983). The family and the market: A study of ideology and legal reform. Harvard Law Review, 96, 1497–1578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peckham, R. F. (1981). The federal judge as a case manager: The new role in guiding a case from filing to disposition. California Law Review, 69, 770–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peckham, R. F. (1985). A judicial response to the cost of litigation: Case management, two-stage discovery planning and alternative dispute resolution. Rutgers Law Review, 37, 253–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poitras, J., Stimec, A., & Roberge, J.-F. (2010). The negative impact of attorneys on mediation outcomes: A myth or a reality? Negotiation Journal, 26, 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Relis, T. (2009). Perceptions in litigation and mediation: Lawyers, defendants, plaintiffs and gendered parties. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, J. (1982). Managerial judges. Harvard Law Review, 96, 374–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, J. (1986). Failing faith: Adjudicatory procedure in decline. University of Chicago Law Review, 53, 494–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, J. (1988). On the bias: Feminist reconsiderations of the aspirations for our judges. Southern California Law Review, 61, 1877–1944.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, J. (1993). Revising the canon: Feminist help in teaching procedure. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 61, 1181–1199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, J. (1995). Many doors? Closing doors? Alternative dispute resolution and adjudication. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 10, 211–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, J. (2006). Whither and whether adjudication? Boston University Law Review, 86, 1101–1154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rifkin, J. (1984). Mediation from a feminist perspective: Promise and problems. Law & Inequality, 2, 21–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberge, J.-F. (2011). La justice participative : changer le milieu juridique par une culture intégrative de règlement des différends. Cowansville: Yvon Blais.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, A. B. (1975). A causerie of lawyers’ ethics in negotiation. Louisiana Law Review, 35, 577–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, A. B. (1978). The managed calendar: Some pragmatic suggestions about achieving the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of civil cases in federal courts. Justice System Journal, 4, 135–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, E. M. (1993). Gendering and engendering process. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 61, 1223–1235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzer, W. W. (1978). Managing civil litigation: The trial judge’s role. Judicature, 61, 400–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffek, F., & Unberath, H. (Eds.). (2013). Regulating dispute resolution: ADR and access to justice at the crossroads. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stipanowich, T. J. (2004). ADR and the “vanishing trial”: The growth and impact of “alternative dispute resolution”. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1, 843–912.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornburg, E. G. (2010). The managerial judge goes to trial. University of Richmond Law Review, 44, 1261–1325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. (1990). Will women judges really make a difference? Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 28, 507–522.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Fabien Gélinas

  2. Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Clément Camion

  3. Département d’anthropologie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Karine Bates

  4. Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Siena Anstis

  5. Faculté de droit, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Catherine Piché

  6. Sheahan and Partners, Westmount, Québec, Canada

    Mariko Khan

  7. Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Emily Grant

Authors
  1. Fabien Gélinas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Clément Camion
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karine Bates
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Siena Anstis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Catherine Piché
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mariko Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Emily Grant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gélinas, F. et al. (2015). The Challenges of Participatory Justice for Public Adjudication. In: Foundations of Civil Justice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18775-4_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation