ABSTRACT
Oneofthemotivatingimpulsesbehindthealternative disputeresolutionmovementisthenotionthatdisputeresolutionoutsideoffulladjudicationisagoodthing. 1Because disputeresolutionisconsideredagoodthing,manyjudicial administratorsandruledraftershavereasoned2thattheprocessofsettlement,compromise,8andalternativedisputeres-
olution should be made mandatory. At the same time, a dispute about the value of dispute resolution is taking place in the law reviews and judicial administration journals. Several articulate and sensible critics have asked us to consider what we gain and lose when we divert cases away from the formal adjudication system.4 My difficulty with this debate is that both sides make unspecified assumptions about the empirical reality of both the formal adjudicatory system and the alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. In addition, they misinterpret the purposes of each of several dispute resolution devices and assume that they are applicable to all cases. In an attempt to "mediate" this dispute, this Essay explores the theories developed by those for and against settlement, particularly in the mandatory settlement conference context.5 It is here that commentators make their most vigorous arguments about the advantages of settlement. Whether and when settlement is a good thing is one question; whether settlement conferences should be mandatory is another. On the assumption that many courts will continue to require settlement conferences, I will take up yet a third question: how mandatory settlement conferences can be conducted to maximize their usefulness without seriously threatening the appropriate role of judges in formal adjudication.
