17 ADR processes, with “self- autonomy of the parties as its foundational underpinning”⁷⁰ and reactive to the adversarial approach to dispute resolution and to lawyer and judge domination in the process. Its adherents would like to replace or supplant the adversarial approach. Judith Resnick adopt this view.⁷¹ Landerkin and Pirie call it the “p essimistic” v iew. [54] Those who adopt this point of view place weight on the interest of the parties in maintaining control over both the process adopted in attempting to reach agreement and the predictability of the result – in short, in avoiding litigation where possible. At the same time, it is necessary to acknowledge the importance of the fact that the discussions (problem-solving, solution-seeking) take place in the “s hadow of the law,” even where no legal action has been commenced.⁷² b.  Complementary [55] Another point of view sees ADR as complementary to adversarial litigation, or supplementary when it is swept into the civil justice system. Carrie Menkel-Meadow remarks on the change from ADR as an alternative to ADR as a supplement: the “adjudication system has c o-opted the ADR system, assuming increased efficiency, reducing dockets, but not achieving any necessary improvements for better justice.”⁷³  However, the “trans formative promise of mediation is lost in the legal culture.” ADR  now supplements adjudication; it does not supplant it. [56] This perspective is reflected in ALRI’s Consult ation Memorandum 12.6 on Promoting Early Resolution of Disputes by Settlement (CM 12.6) which sees the ADR processes (JDR, court-annexed ADR, court-appointed dispute resolution officer) within the court as operating to one side of the litigation track. c.  Co-mingled [57] A third point of view sees ADR processes as co-mingled with traditional litigation. This perspective is consistent with the concept of the omnipotent judge. It conceptualizes JDR as a blended function which places the dispute under the control of the judge who may manage the litigation, facilitate dispute resolution and adjudicate the result. Under this conceptualization, the role of the judge in common law justice systems moves closer to the role of the judge in the civil law justice systems. Stempel takes this view.⁷⁴ It is the view put forward by Landerkin and Pirie.