36 65 CM 12.6 at ??: In 1996, the CBA Task Force was informed that “the  success rate of mini-trials in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench was  between 80 and 90 percent, resulting in substantial savings in sitting days.” In 1999-2000, according to Alberta Justice, an estimated 75 to 80 per cent of cases that went through the judicial dispute resolution process in the Court of Queen’s Bench reached settlement at some point prior to trial: AJ AR 2000-2001, supra note ?? at 42. 66 Chris Guthrie, “The Law yer’s Philosophical Map  and the Disputant’s Perce ptual Map: Impediments to Facilitate Mediation and Lawyering,” (2 002-2003) 6 Harv. Negot. L. Rev. 145. 67 Landerkin and Pirie note that once ADR held connotations that traditionalists in the court resisted, so acronyms like BDR “ better dispute resolution:” or IDR “in dependent dispute resolution” (???) were substituted . No such linguistic bridges are needed any more. 68 R. Tomasic & M. Feeley, “I ntroduction,” in  Neighbourhood Justice: Assessment of an Emerging Idea (New York: Longman Inc., 1982) at x, quoted in Landerkin & Pirie at 269: ... historically we have seen the pendulum of legal change swing from poles such as formality and informality, complexity and simplicity, professionalism and lay decision making, adversary and inquisitorial approaches, and the poles of greater and lesser concern for individualization. Indeed these fluctuations reflect tensions inherent in the law itself, expressing as it does a multiplicity of conflicting and competing goals. 69 C. Menkel-Meadow, “Pursui ng Settlement in an Adversary Culture in an Adversary Culture: A Tale of Innovation Co-opted or the Law of ADR” (1991), 19 Fl. St. U.L.Rev. 1 at 129-30: In my own view, ADR (in all its own variable forms) and adjudication, come to effect, supplement, and challenge each other. Thus as we encounter many dialectical relations in law (rule and discretion, common law and statute, public and private, federal and state systems), we can now add a dialogue and dynamic dimension between and amongst dispute process and systems. See also: C. Menkel-Meadow, “The  Many Ways of Mediation: The Transformation of Traditions, Ideologies, Paradigms, and Practices” (1995) 11 Neg. J. 217; and “When  Dispute Resolution Begets Disputes of Its Own: Conflicts Among Dispute Professionals” (1997) 44 U. C.L.A. L. Rev. 1871. 70 C. Menkel-Meadow, ibid. 71 Landerkin & Pirie, citing Judith Resnick. 72 In ALRI RP 19, supra note ?? at 19, ALRI observed: “I t is highly likely that settlements are strongly influenced by the adversarial characteristics of the current adjudicative process rather than a true application of negotiation or mediation.” In  the Rules Project consultation with the legal community, lawyers commented that “Unl ess a person is able to access the court system, there is no reasonable assurance that she or he will get justice in a mediation – the prospect of a trial and having to accept its outcome is often the main motivation for settlement” Alberta Law Reform Institute, Report on Legal Community Consultation (Alberta Rules of Court Project) (Edmonton: Alberta Law Reform Institute, 2002) at 4 (online: Alberta Law Reform Institute <http://www.law.ualberta.ca/alri/>) [Legal Community Consultation Report].