Alternatives Offered for Streamlining the Courts

In his Commentary on the troubles with our overburdened legal system (“Case Backlog, Lack of New Judgeships Necessitates Innovation,” Nov. 17), Judge Donald E. Smallwood, the incoming presiding judge of the Superior Court in Orange County, yearns for a return to an era of individual responsibility. He suggests that society’s attitudes must change if we are going to reduce the legal caseload and thus the need for more judges and courtrooms. I believe his presentation is articulate and his suggestions are innovative.

There is little question that our system of resolving civil disputes by litigation is not as desirable or effective as it should be. It is limiting America’s ability to compete in the world marketplace. But there seems to be little room for creative dispute resolution within the confines of our traditional adversarial system. Perhaps what we need is not so much a change in societal attitudes, but a change in the way the legal system is used.

It is encouraging that lawyers are recognizing and acting on the need for a change. The delivery of legal services is going through an evolutionary change. The Center for Public Resources Inc. recently announced that more than 150 of the largest law firms in the United States have signed a broad policy statement endorsing new alternatives to litigation. The policy commits the firms to ensuring that their lawyers are acquainted with alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and that they will discuss such options with their clients. A dialogue has thus been opened in which lawyers are re-emphasizing their role as effective problem-solvers.

ADR keeps private disputes private whenever possible and emphasizes negotiations before litigating. Disputants can save money and time and be a part of deciding their own future. We suggest that, as a starting point, every lawyer specializing in business law and every business executive involved in legal disputes should consider ADR as the first means of finding solutions; the courts should be used only as a matter of last resort.

JAMES T. CAPRETZ, Capretz & Kasdan, Irvine