5 2.  Mainstream co-option of ADR processes [15] The seeds of ADR were sown in the private sector. But major institutional players (“u nder-siege legal institutions, deficit-stricken governments, and profit- conscious businesses”¹⁸) soon saw the promise of ADR to reduce the cost of disputing. Governments were and continue to be pressured to respond to the public need for greater access to justice and to fund the courts or other state-offered dispute resolution programs and services. Today, standard form contracts in government and big business routinely require dispute resolution using ADR methods. As well, government-appointed administrative tribunals have introduced ADR into their processes. [16] More or less contemporaneously with the appearance of the ADR movement, the courts were becoming burdened by large caseloads (the consequence, perhaps, of an increasingly litigious society) that impeded the speed of litigation, added to costs and aggravated other inefficiencies. At the same time, governments began to question the extent to which the state should be involved in private disputes.¹⁹ [17] One solution to the large caseloads would be to encourage disputants to resolve their differences out of court. Governments, courts and professional associations began to promote a shift in attitude away from adversarial litigation and toward self- resolution using cooperative problem-solving approaches and dispute resolution resources offered in the private sector. Courts and professional associations urged lawyers to make greater use of ADR techniques, actively promoting the resolution of disputes by party agreement instead of court adjudication.²⁰ [18] For cases that came to court, a multi-option vision of the civil justice system proposed by scholars found favour among governments, professional organizations and the courts.²¹ In the l980s and more so in the 1990s, governments and professional associations were setting up commissions, committees and task forces to explore models of ADR for use in the civil justice system.²² By way of example, in 1996, the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) Report of the Task Force on Systems of Civil Justice called for dispute resolution techniques to be promoted “ not as alternatives to the civil justice system but as integral components of it.”²³ In the CBA’s multi -option vision, the civil justice system in the twenty-first century:²⁴