There are certainly plenty of situations where going through the judicial system should be a preferred medium (stare decisis comes to mind).

I think the ADR “revolution” is beneficial in the regard that it adds tools to the savvy litigator’s box. I don’t think a system focused on arbitration and mediation would work though because there are some cases (and some clients) for whom only standard litigation will work (I say litigation rather than advocacy since I don’t like the term advocacy outside the course that bears its name, all attorneys are advocates for their clients, it’s the medium in which they practice that provides useful labels). At the end of the day, I think the skilled lawyer will match up their case with the mode of dispute resolution best suited to its particular context and circumstance.

And anyone who thinks that the whole “fighting thing” is limited to litigation needs to spend some time in actual arbitrations and mediations pronto. They can be just as contentious as litigation and in certain styles of mediation, more so.

ADR works in some situations, but first and foremost you need to be a zealous advocate. i believe in the adverary system’s ability to dig up facts in sticky situations, but it’s not going to work unless lawyers are willing to be adversary. the facts may eventually shake out to show that some kind of settlement is best, but that situation can only honestly reveal itself if there has been an adversary proceeding from the start.

i guess, in short…civil is one thing, but “kumbaya, can’t we just all get along” is another. i didn’t go into the law to get people to sit around a fire and agree on stuff.