
While ADR has ancient roots, the modern framework litigators navigate today was born out of necessity. Specifically, it was born out of a crisis within the American civil justice system with the Federal Arbitration Act.
By the mid-1970s, the legal system was facing what I call the Four Horsemen of Litigation: overcrowded dockets, prohibitive costs, lack of access, and crippling delay. In 1976, Attorney General Griffin Bell organized the “Roscoe Pound Conference” to address these failures. The goal wasn’t just to “fix” the courts; it was to find a better way to deliver justice.
The Mandate for a “Just and Speedy” Resolution
The Pound Conference wasn’t an academic exercise. It included the senior members of the bar and the judiciary who realized that “business as usual” was failing the American public. This conference paved the way for the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, which requires federal district courts to develop plans to facilitate “deliberate adjudication… and ensure just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of civil disputes.”
For the litigating attorney, this history is vital. The federal government didn’t just suggest ADR; it mandated a shift toward it. From the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to the California Arbitration Act (CAA), the legislative intent is clear: the courts should be a last resort, not the first and only stop.
From Neighborhood Centers to Federal Courts
What began as “neighborhood justice centers” offering low-cost mediation has evolved into a sophisticated marketplace of retired judges and expert neutrals. Today, almost every trade association—from the State Bar to the National Association of Securities Dealers—incorporates ADR.
The transition wasn’t accidental. It was a calculated move by the legal elite to preserve the integrity of the judicial system by moving appropriate disputes into more efficient forums.
Actionable Takeaway: Navigating the Mandate
As you manage your current caseload, consider these historical drivers:
- The Docket Reality: Overcrowding is not a new problem; it’s a 50-year-old systemic issue. ADR is your primary tool to bypass the queue.
- The “Just and Speedy” Test: Does your current litigation path satisfy the spirit of the Civil Justice Reform Act? If not, you are risking client dissatisfaction.
- Leverage the Expert: The rise of the retired judge as a mediator provides a unique opportunity to get a “bench-eye view” of your case without the risk of a binding judgment.
Modern ADR is a response to the failures of pure adjudication. I specialize in helping litigators fulfill the “just, speedy, and inexpensive” mandate for their commercial clients. Let’s discuss how I can help you clear your docket.
This blog is adapted from my unpublished manuscript on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).
About the Author: Ken Strongman is a private commercial mediator/arbitrator of complex, high risk litigated cases since 2004. Disputes addressed include business, securities, construction defects, real estate, intellectual property, employment, environment, energy, and trusts & estates. He is also a Mediator and Arbitrator for FINRA, past president of The Mediation Society. and instructor at UC Law San Francisco.
© 2026-27 Ken Strongman. All Rights Reserved. Please do not copy or repost without permission.














