19 litigation track leading to trial and into measures designed to promote settlement should be guided by an understanding of the varying roles of the court. 3.  Quality of justice [61] ADR as supplementary to civil litigation and adjudication raises the spectre of two-tiered justice – one justice for those who can afford to go to trial and another justice for those who cannot. Fiss sees a risk that the “i ndividualization, informalization, and privatization of justice under ADR” may further  disadvantage the least powerful groups or individuals in society.⁸² ADR leaves open the potential to satisfy  individual demands “i n order to forestall their aggregation”⁸³ and to pay more attention to interests than rights.⁸⁴ To Sabatino, “ADR  mechanisms often resemble, at least in certain respects, ‘litigation lite’  where disputants go to avoid the high costs, in terms of time, money, and stress, of the orthodox model of litigation.”⁸⁵ [62] Talk of the possibility of a lower tier of justice for those using ADR raises questions about the quality of justice obtained. Do legally-based results provide a better quality of justice than interest-based results in individual cases? What role, if any, should the public interest in the communication and reinforcement of values play in decisions about how a dispute should be resolved? Is justice less well served when time-honoured procedural and evidentiary rules are compromised – when the information upon which decisions are based is unsworn, unrecorded and unchecked by rules of evidence or public scrutiny? What is the impact of lack of procedural clarity on the quality of justice? What is the potential for abuse of process where one party has no desire to resolve the dispute by agreement? If the public interest is a factor in determining what process to use, who should decide whether resolution by adjudication or by the parties is most appropriate? What should happen when parties whose case raises issues of public interest cannot afford adjudication? 4.  Functions performed by judges [63] In the co-mingled conception of ADR and the courts, the distinctions that might otherwise exist are blurred. In the complementary conception, “[b]e ing clear about the differences in function [would] assist preparation by counsel and the parties who need predictability about why they are going to meet with a judge.”⁸⁶