6 – is responsive to the needs of users and encourages and values public involvement, – provides many options to litigants for dispute resolution, – rests within a framework managed by the courts, and – provides an incentive structure that rewards early settlement and results in trials being a mechanism of valued but last resort for determining disputes. According to the CBA, opportunities to use non-binding dispute resolution as early as possible in the litigation process should be available as part of the civil justice system.²⁵ The change “begins  with a new focus on dispute resolution as the goal and a corresponding reduction in the antagonistic nature of the litigation process.”²⁶ Some lawyers will have to fundamentally reorient themselves away from “fight ing the other side to solving a common problem.”²⁷ [19] A significant cultural shift is taking place and the promotion of dispute resolution by agreement of the parties is a major component of that shift. Existing civil justice systems offer a range of measures that promote settlement, and new measures continue to be introduced. Programs and services formerly provided only in the private sector are now being annexed to the court as part of its service. The practices and expectations of litigants, lawyers, judges and court staff with respect to the civil justice system are changing. [20] True to ADR’s essent ial characteristics of innovation, creativity and experimentation, ADR in the courts involves continuing adaptation and evolution of ADR processes. But as governments, tribunals, and courts borrow, co-opt and adapt ADR methods, an ironic shift becomes apparent. Control over the dispute resolution processes moves to the institution. Processes that were open to negotiation become structured and subject to rules that operate systemically. Voluntary participation in an ADR process becomes mandatory participation. Self-resolution loses ground to professional representation. Processes that began informally are formalized, what was elective becomes directive. In short, rather than be designed to meet the specific needs and exigencies of the parties to the particular dispute, ADR techniques are adapted to fit the goals of the institution or system. Even pre-action behaviour may be caught in the net. In England and Wales, the Civil Practice Rules allow the court to consider compliance with pre-action protocols when assessing costs or making case management decisions.²⁸ In Canada, the CBA Task Force on Systems of Civil Justice