7 raised the possibility of (but did not recommend) making participation in mediation mandatory prior to the commencement of court action.²⁹ In short, with co-option, the element of choice is diminished, the conversation constricted. [21] An aspect of this diminishment is in the scope for disputants to consider the kinds of factors that affect the choice of ADR method. In the private sector, such factors include:³⁰ matching a dispute with a process;³¹ the strength of the “inte rpersonal” dimensi on of the dispute (i.e., interpersonal or impersonal relationship between the disputants); the nature of the dispute; the amount at stake; alternative methods; the speed of resolution; the cost involved; the relative power of the disputants; the relative knowledge of the disputants; the relative financial resources of the disputants; the mechanisms for steering disputants and intermediaries to the right choice; the relationship between dispute resolution methods (i.e., linear, hierarchical model, or integrated); the incentives for use of alternative methods; and the attitudes of lawyers and judges. [22] In summary, ADR is so enticing that governments, courts and other public institutions are claiming and reshaping it to their purposes. ADR which once symbolized dispute resolution outside the courts now embraces any method of resolving a dispute that is alternative to court adjudication, whether provided within or outside the court. 3. Use of ADR by judges [23] The emphasis on resolving disputes through party agreement coincided with another development in response to increased caseloads and the pressure on courts to reduce delay and costs: judges were becoming increasingly managerial.³² The coincidence of interest in ADR promotion and judicial management of litigation led to an enhanced role for judges in relation to settlement efforts. [24] The link between the managerial role and ADR by judges is found in the expansion of the pre-trial conference rules. At first, the purpose of the pre-trial conference was the assessment of the preparation and readiness of the parties for trial so as to “ [improve] the quality of the upcoming trial.”³³ In 1983, however, in the United States, the pre-trial conference rule in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was amended to permit judges to “consider  and take action with respect to ... the