18 d.  Fundamental questions [58] Whatever view one takes, important questions cry out. Landerkin and Pirie identify “th ree critical points of inquiry:⁷⁵ First, on fundamental justice policy grounds, should judges be doing JDR? Second, do judges have the jurisdiction to engage in JDR? Third, do judges have the necessary skills to competently practise JDR? Stempel’s  questions cast a wider net:⁷⁶ (a) what types of ADR mechanisms or approaches are appropriate for judicial incorporation? (b) what ADR techniques are best left to privatization? (c) what degree of supervision should courts exercise over private ADR? (d) what ADR methods should be tightly regulated, discouraged or even prohibited by the court? Carrie Menkel-Meadow’s fundamental questions ar e reproduced in Appendix D. 2.  Effect on the court’s traditional functions [59] The focus of ADR is on dispute resolution. However, dispute resolution is not the only function performed by the courts. Other goals include maintaining order in society, setting standards for behaviour and upholding rights.⁷⁷ Fiss speaks of the job of the courts “to ex plicate and give force to the values embodied in authoritative texts such as the Constitution and statutes; to interpret those values and to bring reality into accord with them.”⁷⁸ Landerkin and Pirie describe “ the traditional orthodox system [as] an institutional one in that the court is visible and accountable, operating with predetermined rules of procedure that apply equally to all.”⁷⁹ They add that “[c]o urts also generate guidelines for future behaviour out of past occurrences.”⁸⁰ [60] Is the court’s e ffectiveness unduly compromised when disputes are resolved in private, rather than in public, in accordance with the personal interests of the parties but without public ascertainment of rights? Is there a need to establish criteria for determining which cases should be adjudicated in public (whether using traditional litigation processes or new methods) and which cases are best suited for private resolution by the parties (using what methods)? As ALRI stated in CM 12.6:⁸¹ Promoting the resolution of a case by settlement [agreement] between the parties may not be appropriate for every case. One of the challenges for lawyers and judges lies in distinguishing between those cases that are suitable for settlement and those that appropriately should proceed to adjudication. Decisions about the diversion of cases away from the