20 [64] In CM 12.6, ALRI proposed a distinction between managing litigation and facilitating settlement.  Encouraging the parties to consider settlement or to make use of ADR processes was seen as an aspect of managing litigation. In contrast, facilitating settlement involves the active use of ADR methods in an effort to bring about agreement between the parties. In effect, the judge steps outside the authoritative role required to manage litigation and decide cases, and into a role more akin to that performed by an outside facilitator in a private sector ADR process. Writing in 1986, Galanter, viewed the interaction between conciliation (ALRI’s “facilitation”) and jud  icial administration, including the exercise of a trial court’s “coerci ve power” (ALRI’s “encoura  gement as a facet of managing litigation” ) to lie at the heart of the debate about whether or not judges should participate in settlement processes.⁸⁷ The debate continues. [65] The practice of facilitating settlement in a “bi nding JDR” suggests  a similar need to define the boundary between facilitating settlement and adjudicating. Litigants may be confused about the capacity in which the judge is involved in a JDR, compared the judge’s trad itional adjudicative authority at trial. 5.  Cost and delay [66] ADR is thought to be faster and cheaper than litigation. However, if the dispute is not resolved, time spent in ADR becomes an added step and  cost. Moreover, loading the civil justice system with processes at the front-end may create unnecessary costs in cases where settlement could be reached without the procedural steps that are imposed. 6.  Disputant v. institutional motivations [67] As has been seen, significant shifts in emphasis follow the co-option of ADR by government, the courts and big business. Whose objectives are being met by the incorporation of ADR into the civil justice system? Are the right values being applied, the right ends being served? 7.  Public confidence in the civil justice system [68] An important weather vane is the impact of the co-option of ADR by the courts on public confidence in the civil justice system. Public confidence is difficult to gauge. In England, Jacobs attributes the momentum for change in the civil justice