15 • “the ju dge’ s adjudicative experience in seeing the strengths and weaknesses in parties’ p ositions would be utilized to help the disputants resolve their differences expeditiously and fairly”⁶² • litigants want to tell their story to a judge; • the JDR judge provides litigants with authoritative opinion;⁶³ • the judge’s vie ws may carry more weight than the lawyer’s vie ws with parties who are reluctant to settle; • “t he judge can be most effective in acting as the catalytic agent to bring the two parties together” and  “in a g reat majority of the cases reasonable men, after all the facts are on the table, can arrive at an area of agreement”;⁶⁴ • JDR is a free service (i.e., the JDR judge is available without cost to the litigants whereas disputants would have to pay for ADR assistance in the private sector); and • lawyers like being able to choose the judge based on a judge’s  particular area of knowledge and style of JDR. [46] Although Alberta has no formal system for keeping statistics on the outcomes of JDRs, the anecdotal evidence attests to their success in aiding parties to reach settlement⁶⁵ and thereby reducing the court time that otherwise would be spent in litigation management, trial and adjudication. Moreover, the judges who conduct JDRs are enthusiastic about the good they feel is being achieved for the parties, for the overall efficiency of the civil justice system and for public confidence in the courts. [47] This popularity notwithstanding, the growth in the popularity of ADR and JDR and the patterns of change do not come without questions and concerns. It is to these that we turn in the next section of this paper. [48] Before moving on, one observation comes to mind. Legally-trained persons have a tendency to solve problems by “taki ng charge.” In tr aditional litigation, lawyers took