3 1.  Origins of ADR: A Reaction to Adversarial Litigation [8] The modern ADR movement is usually viewed as having originated in the United States during the 1960s or 1970s in a climate of criticism of the adversarial nature of litigation,⁶ and, perhaps, loss of faith in adjudication⁷ or a “d ecline in confidence ... in the competence and professionalism of lawyers.”⁸ The criticisms have been articulated many times, in many ways. Traditionally, in the common law civil litigation system:⁹ ... a state-empowered authoritative figure, the judge, hears the evidence presented by the parties (usually through their legal counsel) and makes the decision. The issues are framed in the language of legal specialists, which does not always fit well with the understanding (and lived reality) of the parties to the dispute. The parties are often distanced from the process which is dominated by lawyers and judges. At worst, some would say, the system emphasized “argument, debate, threats, hidden information, deception, lies, persuasion, declarations, and toughness.”¹⁰ The rules of civil procedure which structured the litigation process served as “agreed rules of combat” in the “march toward the courthouse.”¹¹ Generally, the judge kept out of the arena of the dispute and let the parties, with the advice of their legal counsel, decide when and how to proceed. [9] Those who first promoted ADR sought processes which would place the disputants in control of the choice of process, identification of the issues and determination of the solution as well as encourage a more cooperative approach to dispute resolution by parties desiring to reach a mutually satisfactory outcome. An era of experimentation with creative new methods of dispute resolution sprang to life in the private sector.¹² The acronym ADR, for “al ternative dispute resolution,” si gnified a process for dispute resolution that stood in contrast to litigation in the courts. Often the consensual resolution would be achieved with the assistance of a neutral outsider to the dispute who, typically (unlike a judge), would not have authority to impose a decision. Appendix A to this paper contains a chart comparing characteristics of the traditional litigation process with those of innovative ADR. [10] ADR does not describe any single style of dispute resolution process. Instead, it embraces a wide spectrum of dispute resolution processes based on the well-known concepts of negotiation, mediation and arbitration but characterized by imagination and innovation. The interpretation of ADR is as flexible as the processes it envisages.