37 73 Landerkin & Pirie, at 276. 74 J. Stempel, “R eflections on Judicial ADR and the Multi-Door Court House at Twenty: Fait Accompli, Failed Overture or Fledgling Adulthood?” (1996) 11 Ohio St. J. Dis. Res. 297. 75 Landerkin & Pirie, at 281. 76 Landerkin & Pirie, at 279, quoting Stempel, supra note ??, at 302. [“Reflections ...] 77 Canadian Bar Association, Task Force on Court Reform in Canada, Court Reform in Canada (Ottawa: Canadian Bar Association, 1991) at 42-43 [CBA 1991], identifies other goals, which include: (1) as an essential part of government, playing an important part in “maintaining order, upholding the rule of law and preserving public confidence in society’s  institutions”; (2) the provision of “au thoritative statements about the law” which “contribute to the form ulation of “backgrou nd norms” necessary for private ordering” and which “actually form  part of the basis upon which individuals plan their affairs and conduct their businesses”; and (3) rights vindication which is “concerned with com pliance with legal rules rather than the adjudication of a particular dispute.” 78 O.M. Fiss, “Ag ainst Settlement” (1984) 93 Yale L.J. 1073 at 1085. 79 Landerkin and Pirie, at 278. 80 Ibid. 81 CM 12.6, at 3. 82 Landerkin & Pirie, at 277-278, citing Fiss, ... 83 R.L. Abel, ed., The Politics of Informal Justice, vol. 2 (New York: Academic Press, 1982) at 3-4. 84 See R. Fisher, W. Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1981). (This critique argues that ADR has shifted the emphasis from legal rights and rights benefits to individual interests and a psychological, economic, or other way of analyzing what motivates people in dispute. The operating system for this shift comes from the work of Roger Fisher and William Ury who popularized an interest-based approach to negotiation (principled negotiation win-win, integrative bargaining, focus on interests no positions, etc.) 85 Landerkin & Pirie, at 278, citing J.M. Sabatino, “ADR  as ‘Litigation Lite’: Pro cedural and Evidentiary Norms Embedded Within Alternative Dispute Resolution” (1998) 47 Emory L.J. 1289, at 1292. 86 CM12.6, p. 15. 87 M. Galanter, “Th e Emergence of the Judge as a Mediator in Civil Cases”  (1986) 69 Judicature 257, cited in Landerkin & Pirie, at 263-264.