Beyond the Battlefield: How the ADR Act Taught Me to Restore a Broken System

For 15 years, I’ve been a small business owner in the world of federal contracting.

I remember the pride I felt winning my first prime contract—the sense that my company had finally made it, that we were a trusted partner in a vital national enterprise.

That optimism, however, didn’t survive its first encounter with the reality of a contract dispute.

My soul-crushing moment came from a seemingly straightforward contract modification.

What began as a disagreement over scope spiraled into a two-year legal war with a federal agency.

It cost my company hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees—money that should have gone to hiring new talent or investing in equipment.

It cost me countless sleepless nights and poisoned a once-productive relationship with a contracting officer I had respected.

We “won,” in the sense that we didn’t go bankrupt, but the ground was scorched.

The relationship was gone, the trust was shattered, and the process itself felt designed for mutual destruction.

My personal story, I soon learned, was just a microcosm of a deeply flawed system.

The traditional litigation process is not a forum for resolution; it’s an adversarial battlefield designed for attrition.¹

It’s a place where procedural rules are often misused as weapons to drive up costs and where the focus is on total victory rather than a workable solution.¹

The financial toll is staggering.

Studies show that litigation transaction costs can consume roughly 60% of U.S. tort costs, with only 40% benefiting the claimant.³

For the average American household, this translates to a hidden “tort tax” of over $4,200 per year.¹

For a small business, these aren’t just statistics; they are existential threats.

But the human cost is even higher.

The process creates “brittle,” binary, win-lose outcomes and fosters an animosity that can destroy a small business’s most valuable asset: its reputation and its relationships.⁴

This ordeal forced me to ask a fundamental question: If the primary system for resolving disputes is designed to burn everything to the ground, is there a better way to put out the fire?

The Epiphany: A Paradigm Shift from Battlefield to Ecosystem

After my devastating legal battle, I was searching for answers.

I stumbled upon the concept of systems thinking, particularly as it’s applied in ecological restoration.

It was a moment of profound clarity.

I realized I had been looking at my dispute through the wrong lens.

The legal system had taught me to see it as a battlefield, but that was a flawed, destructive metaphor.

My epiphany was this: A business dispute is not a battlefield to be won, but a damaged ecosystem that needs to be restored.

The battlefield metaphor, reinforced by legal language like “plaintiff vs. defendant” and “winning a case,” implies a zero-sum game with a winner and a loser.

It encourages scorched-earth tactics where the goal is to vanquish the opponent, regardless of the collateral damage.⁶

The ecosystem metaphor, however, reframes the entire situation.

My company and the federal agency weren’t enemies; we were interdependent species in a shared habitat—the contract, the project, the mission.

The dispute was a pollutant, an invasive species that had thrown the system out of balance.

The goal, I now understood, shouldn’t be to annihilate the other party but to restore the system to a healthy, productive state.

This new paradigm draws on the core principles of systems thinking, where you focus on the web of interdependencies and circular relationships rather than linear, one-way blame.⁸

This new way of seeing the problem gave me a framework for understanding not just what went wrong, but how to make it right.

It requires assessing the damaged terrain, finding the right legislative seeds to plant new growth, using the proper tools of restoration, and learning from both successful and failed attempts to bring a damaged environment back to life.

Assessing the Damaged Terrain: The True Costs of the Adversarial Approach

Before you can restore an ecosystem, you must first understand the nature and extent of the damage.

The traditional litigation system, when viewed through this lens, is a deeply polluted environment, hostile to the survival of smaller entities like my business.

Toxic Inputs: Costs and Delays

The most obvious pollutants are the exorbitant costs and crippling delays.

For large corporations, litigation transaction costs can average nearly $115 million annually.³

For a small business, even a fraction of that is a death sentence.

The costs of discovery alone—the process of gathering evidence—can be so high that they threaten to exceed the amount at issue in all but the largest cases.³

These costs act as a poison, making the environment uninhabitable for those without deep financial reserves.

Invasive Species: Adversarial Tactics

The system’s adversarial nature breeds its own invasive species: a culture of “legal system abuse.” This refers to tactics employed to initiate more lawsuits, intentionally increase litigation expenses, and secure higher verdicts through procedural manipulation rather than the merits of the case.¹

This creates a hostile environment where trust, the essential nutrient for any healthy business relationship, cannot survive.

Habitat Loss: The Vanishing Trial

One of the most telling signs of this systemic collapse is the phenomenon of the “vanishing trial.” The percentage of federal civil cases terminated by a trial plummeted from 11.5% in 1962 to a mere 1.7% by 2004.¹⁰

This isn’t because disputes are disappearing; it’s because the primary mechanism for resolution within the traditional ecosystem has become too costly and inefficient to sustain its own core function.

The system has become so choked with toxic inputs and invasive tactics that its main purpose—adjudication—can no longer be fulfilled for the vast majority of participants.

This represents a market failure; the traditional “product” of a court verdict is no longer affordable or efficient for most of its “consumers.” This created a vacuum that new legislation was designed to fill.

Systemic Imbalance

Finally, the civil court system has become dominated by institutional interests.

One study of a million civil cases found that the dockets were overwhelmed by debt collection (39%), landlord/tenant issues (27%), and foreclosures (17%).¹¹

This leaves little room for the “kinds of disputes that common people have,” disproportionately affecting small businesses that lack the resources and staying power of large institutional players.¹¹

The Legislative Seed: How the ADR Acts Planted a New Approach

The recognition that the litigation ecosystem was failing spurred a movement toward restoration.

While the concept of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has roots going back centuries, it began to gain serious traction in the U.S. in the 1970s as a direct response to disabling court backlogs and the growing sense that the formal, adversarial process was broken.¹²

This movement culminated in two landmark pieces of legislation that planted the seeds for a new approach.

The First Seed: The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996

The first major legislative step was the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996.

This law was aimed inward, designed to encourage federal agencies to use ADR to resolve administrative disputes related to areas like workplace issues, government contracts, and regulatory enforcement.¹⁴

Congress explicitly found that administrative proceedings had become “increasingly formal, costly, and lengthy” and that ADR could yield “faster, less expensive, and less contentious” outcomes.¹⁶

This act was the first attempt to detoxify the internal government ecosystem, promoting a culture of resolution over conflict within the agencies themselves.

The Main Growth Spurt: The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998

The true paradigm shift came with the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998.

Its passage with overwhelming bipartisan support—405 to 2 in the House and unanimously in the Senate—signaled a powerful consensus that the old system was failing and a new path was needed.¹⁷

This act was directed at the federal

district courts and fundamentally reshaped the landscape of civil litigation in the United States.

It didn’t just suggest ADR; it mandated a new infrastructure for it.

The Act’s core provisions moved ADR from an ad-hoc experiment to an institutionalized feature of the federal justice system.

It fundamentally altered the power dynamic by embedding a procedural checkpoint into the lifecycle of a federal case.

Before, the path was a straight, often unavoidable, line toward expensive discovery and a potential trial.

The Act created a mandatory off-ramp, a moment where parties are forced to pause and contemplate a collaborative solution.

This empowers less-resourced parties, like small businesses, by giving them a formal, court-sanctioned opportunity to propose a cheaper, faster resolution before being buried in litigation costs.

The table below summarizes the key mandates of this transformative law.

Provision	Mandate/Directive	U.S. Code Reference	Significance
Program Implementation	“Each United States district court shall devise and implement its own alternative dispute resolution program” by local rule.	28 U.S.C. § 651(b)	Institutionalizes ADR as a mandatory, core function of the federal court system, not just an optional extra.
Promotion and Encouragement	Each district court shall “encourage and promote the use of alternative dispute resolution in its district.”	28 U.S.C. § 651(b)	Shifts the court’s role from a passive adjudicator to an active promoter of collaborative resolution.
Litigant Requirement	Courts shall “require that litigants in all civil cases consider the use of an alternative dispute resolution process at an appropriate stage.”	28 U.S.C. § 652(a)	Creates a formal procedural step ensuring every litigant is exposed to ADR as a viable option, preventing it from being overlooked.
Provision of Options	Courts must “provide litigants in all civil cases with at least one alternative dispute resolution process,” including mediation and ENE.	28 U.S.C. § 652(a)	Guarantees access to ADR services, ensuring that the mandate to “consider” it is backed by tangible options.
Confidentiality	Each district court shall, by local rule, “provide for the confidentiality of the alternative dispute resolution processes.”	28 U.S.C. § 652(d)	Creates a safe space for candid negotiation by protecting communications, which is essential for building trust.
Neutral Qualifications	Courts are authorized to use trained neutrals, including magistrate judges, private sector professionals, and other trained individuals.	28 U.S.C. § 653	Establishes a framework for quality control and professionalism for the mediators and arbitrators who facilitate the processes.

The Tools of Restoration: A Field Guide to ADR Methods

The ADR Act provided more than just a mandate; it provided a diverse toolkit for restoration.

This reflects a sophisticated understanding that different types of ecosystem damage require different healing strategies.

A dispute rooted in miscommunication requires a different tool than one centered on a technical disagreement.

The following are the primary tools available to the “dispute ecologists”—the neutral and the parties—working to restore a damaged business relationship.

Mediation: The Keystone Species

Mediation is the most common form of ADR, involving a neutral third party who facilitates a confidential negotiation to help the parties craft their own solution.¹²

In our ecosystem analogy, the mediator is a

keystone species.

Like a beaver building a dam that transforms a whole valley, the mediator has no formal authority to impose a decision, but their presence fundamentally changes the dynamics of the environment.

They enable communication (like a pollinator), help rebuild trust (improving soil quality), and foster creative, mutually beneficial outcomes (creating symbiotic relationships).

Arbitration: The Controlled Burn

Arbitration is a more formal process where a neutral third party hears evidence and issues a decision, which can be either binding or non-binding.¹²

This is the ecosystem’s

controlled burn.

It’s a more decisive intervention designed to clear away intractable undergrowth (disputed facts) to allow for new growth.

It is faster and more contained than a wildfire (litigation), but it results in a decision being imposed from the outside, rather than growing organically from the parties’ collaboration.

Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE): The Soil Analysis

In ENE, a neutral expert assesses the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s case early in the process, providing a non-binding reality check.¹²

This is the equivalent of a

soil and water analysis.

It provides an objective, data-driven assessment of the terrain, telling the parties what nutrients are present (strengths of their case) and what toxins exist (weaknesses).

This allows them to make a realistic plan for restoration rather than proceeding based on flawed assumptions about their chances of “winning” a war.

Conciliation: Re-establishing Pathways

Conciliation is a process focused on rebuilding a positive relationship between the parties.

A third party works to establish communication, clarify misperceptions, and build the trust necessary for cooperative problem-solving.¹²

In the ecosystem, this is like

re-establishing wildlife corridors or clearing blocked streams.

It restores the fundamental pathways of communication and goodwill that have been severed by the conflict, allowing for the healthy flow of information.

The table below provides a comparative analysis of the most common ADR methods.

	Mediation	Binding Arbitration	Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE)
Process Focus	Facilitated Negotiation	Adjudication	Assessment & Reality Check
Neutral’s Role	Facilitator, guides communication	Private Judge, makes a decision	Expert Evaluator, provides an opinion
Outcome	Mutually-crafted, voluntary agreement	Imposed, binding decision	Non-binding, advisory opinion
Control	High party control over outcome	Low party control over outcome	High party control (can accept or reject opinion)
Best For	Preserving relationships, complex issues with creative solutions, confidentiality	Need for a final and binding decision, technical disputes requiring expert judgment	Early reality check, managing discovery costs, breaking negotiation deadlocks

Case Studies in Restoration: From Barren Ground to Thriving Habitats

The true power of the ecosystem paradigm is revealed in its application.

After my first disastrous experience with litigation, I faced another significant contract dispute.

This time, armed with a new perspective, I proposed mediation at the outset.

The agency agreed.

The process was transformative.

The neutral mediator didn’t take sides; she reframed our adversarial language into problem-solving questions.

The tone shifted from accusation to collaboration.

We ended up crafting a solution that involved a no-cost schedule modification and a joint plan for mitigating future risks—an outcome a court could never have ordered.

We not only solved the problem but also repaired the relationship, leading to two more successful contracts with that same agency.

This personal success is mirrored in large-scale, high-stakes disputes across the federal government.

Macro-Level Success: The EPA & U.S. Navy at the Washington Navy Yard

One of the premier examples of large-scale ecosystem restoration involved a deadlocked dispute between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Navy over alleged environmental violations at the Washington Navy Yard.²⁰

The parties viewed the issues as “impossible” to resolve.²⁰

An Administrative Law Judge, acting as a mediator, skillfully broke the “trial mode.” He started by having the parties focus on small, non-disputed points to build momentum and a sense of teamwork.

He gave them “homework” assignments, shifting their focus from telling him their side to listening to and addressing the other side’s concerns.²⁰

The outcome was a comprehensive settlement that resolved all outstanding issues and established workable new processes.

It saved the Navy an estimated $1.2 million in compliance costs and avoided hundreds of thousands in litigation expenses for both sides, all while producing an “environmentally protective permit”.²¹

A Navy attorney involved called the mediation an “excellent way to work through issues,” noting that the neutral helped both sides see how reasonable their positions were from a judicial point of view.²⁰

This is a perfect example of a win-win outcome that restored the system’s health.

Broad-Based Evidence of Success

These stories are not anomalies.

Compelling data shows that ADR is a proven, effective system for restoration.

• A Department of Justice study found that when ADR was used, 65% of cases settled, compared to only 29% when it was not.¹⁰
• Court-sponsored ADR programs report high success rates. Federal courts in western Missouri resolve roughly 50% of civil cases via ADR, while in Maryland state courts, more than half of all cases using ADR settled before trial.²²
• The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) mediation program consistently resolves over 70% of mediated cases, with small business owners praising its confidentiality and ability to preserve relationships.²³
• The IRS’s Fast Track Settlement program resolves approximately 90% of cases in a fraction of the time of traditional appeals, saving taxpayers an average of 450 days per case.²⁵

The key to these successes is that the most effective ADR processes do not simply split the difference on a monetary claim.

They succeed by expanding the “pie” through interest-based negotiation.

Litigation is typically a zero-sum game about money.

ADR allows parties to move beyond their stated positions (e.g., “I demand $100,000”) to their underlying interests (e.g., “I need a fair schedule adjustment,” or “We need a workable compliance plan”).

This shift allows for the creation of value and integrative solutions—like policy changes, job reinstatements, or future business opportunities—that are impossible within the rigid framework of a courtroom.

Challenges in the Field: Invasive Species and Unforeseen Blight

To maintain a healthy ecosystem, a steward must be realistic about the persistent threats.

Despite its successes, the world of ADR is not a utopia.

To navigate it successfully, especially as a small business, one must be aware of its potential dangers.

Invasive Species: Bad-Faith Actors and Power Imbalances

The very informality that makes ADR flexible can also make it vulnerable.

In any negotiation, knowledge is power.²⁷

Parties with greater resources—more funding, better access to information, and more experience with the process—can potentially disadvantage and coerce weaker parties into unfair settlements.²⁷

This is a critical concern for a small business facing a large federal agency or a massive prime contractor.

Without a skilled and ethical neutral to level the playing field, the process can be corrupted.

Environmental Stressors: Systemic Issues

Even well-intentioned programs can face systemic challenges.

• The Problem of Mandatory ADR: While intended to promote resolution, forcing unwilling parties into a collaborative process can be counterproductive. Data from one major study showed that voluntary ADR had a significantly higher success rate (71%) than mandatory ADR (50%).¹⁰ This suggests that genuine buy-in is a critical ingredient for success.
• Stakeholder Dissatisfaction: Perception gaps can undermine a program’s effectiveness. A 2021 EEOC report found that while nearly all management officials were satisfied with the fairness of the ADR process, a majority of the complainants surveyed expressed dissatisfaction.²⁸ This highlights the ongoing challenge of ensuring the process not only
  is fair but is also perceived as fair by all participants.

Unforeseen Blight: ADR-Generated Litigation

Ironically, the process designed to avoid litigation can sometimes create it.

In recent years, there has been a more than fivefold increase in court cases about mediation itself.²⁹

These disputes often center on the enforceability of a mediated settlement, alleged breaches of confidentiality, or other procedural issues.

This demonstrates that the restoration process itself can sometimes introduce new and unforeseen complications into the ecosystem.

The success of ADR rests almost entirely on the quality, training, and ethical framework of the neutral third party.

Unlike a judge, who is bound by strict rules of evidence, a mediator operates in a far less structured environment.

The responsibility for managing power dynamics, ensuring all voices are heard, and preventing coercion falls squarely on their shoulders.

The neutral is the lynchpin of the entire system, making agency investment in their training and quality control absolutely critical.²⁸

Conclusion: Cultivating a Culture of Resolution

My journey through the scorched earth of a federal contract dispute and into the restorative world of ADR has taught me a profound lesson.

Viewing conflict as a damaged ecosystem in need of healing, rather than a battlefield to be won, is not just a semantic trick; it is a fundamentally more powerful and effective framework for resolution.

It redefines a “win” from a legal victory to a business and relational victory—the restoration of a healthy, productive partnership.

The ADR Act of 1998 didn’t just give people like me a new set of tools; it offered a new philosophy.

For small business owners and policymakers alike, the task is to become effective stewards of this new ecosystem.

A Stewardship Guide for Small Business Owners

• Proactive Seeding: Don’t wait for a fire to start. Include multi-step ADR clauses in your contracts and teaming agreements. Specify a process of negotiation, followed by mediation, before any litigation can commence.³¹
• Know Your Terrain: Before entering any ADR session, understand your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). What is your best-case scenario if you walk away and go to court? Knowing this gives you a baseline for evaluating any settlement offer.³³
• Choose the Right Tools: Understand the critical differences between mediation, arbitration, and ENE. Advocate for the process that best suits the specific nature of your dispute. If the relationship is key, push for mediation. If you need a fast, expert decision on a technical issue, consider arbitration.³⁴
• Engage in Good Faith: ADR is a collaborative process. Its success depends on a genuine willingness from all parties to find a solution. Enter the process with an open mind, ready to listen and problem-solve.³⁴

Cultivating the Ecosystem: Recommendations for Policymakers

• Invest in the Ecologists: The integrity of the entire system rests on the skill of its neutrals. Federal agencies must enhance funding for the training, certification, and continuous evaluation of their mediators and arbitrators to ensure the highest ethical and quality standards.²⁸
• Improve the Data: Implement standardized data collection across all federal ADR programs to better track success rates, costs, participant satisfaction, and long-term outcomes. This data is essential for identifying what works and continuously improving the system.²²
• Promote the Culture: Federal agencies should move beyond simply offering ADR to actively championing a culture of collaborative problem-solving. This means training and rewarding contracting officers and managers who successfully use ADR to resolve disputes efficiently and preserve vital contractor relationships.³⁶

In the complex, interdependent world of federal contracting, the most resilient businesses are not the most aggressive fighters, but the most skilled restorers.

The goal is not just to survive the occasional conflict, but to cultivate a thriving, sustainable habitat where partnerships can flourish and missions can be accomplished.

Works cited

1. Impact of legal system abuse on the US civil justice system – Munich Re, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.munichre.com/us-non-life/en/insights/business-risks/impact-of-legal-system-abuse-on-the-us-civil-justice-system.html
2. The Conundrum of the Arbitration vs. Litigation Decision – American Bar Association, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2015-december/the-conundrum-of-the-arbitration-vs-litigation-decision/
3. Litigation Cost Survey of Major Companies – United States Courts, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/litigation_cost_survey_of_major_companies_0.pdf
4. What is an appropriate measure of litigation? – Oñati Socio-Legal Series, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/1163/1319
5. Three reasons mediations fail and three ways to move forward – Advocate Magazine, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.advocatemagazine.com/article/2020-august/three-reasons-mediations-fail-and-three-ways-to-move-forward
6. Why Is Divorce Mediation Considered “Alternative” Dispute Resolution?, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://burnsmediation.com/why-is-mediation-alternative-dispute-resolution/
7. Metaphors – Beyond Intractability, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/metaphors
8. Systems Thinking Tools: A User’s Guide, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://thesystemsthinker.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Systems-Thinking-Tools-TRST01E.pdf
9. Practical Challenges of Systems Thinking and Modeling in Public Health – PubMed Central, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1470516/
10. Dispute Resolution and the Vanishing Trial: Comparing Federal Government Litigation and ADR Outcomes, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.sidley.com/~/media/files/publications/2009/01/dispute-resolution-and-the-vanishing-trial-compa__/files/view-article/fileattachment/govlitadroutcomes.pdf
11. ABA committee says civil justice system is broken, offers roadmap for improvement, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2017/march-2017/aba-committee-says-civil-justice-system-is-broken–offers-roadma/
12. Alternate Dispute Resolution Handbook – OPM, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/employee-relations/employee-rights-appeals/alternative-dispute-resolution/handbook.pdf
13. About Alternative Dispute Resolution – University of North Florida, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.unf.edu/deanofstudents/resolution/about-adr.html
14. H.R.4194 – 104th Congress (1995-1996): Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/4194
15. H. Rept. 104-597 – ADMINISTRATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT OF 1996 | Congress.gov, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/104th-congress/house-report/597/1
16. The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 – VA.gov, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.va.gov/adr/docs/ADRA.pdf
17. Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998: Implementing a New Paradigm of Justice, The – NYU Law Review, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYULawReview-76-6-Crowne.pdf
18. ADR Act of 1998: A Reflection on Its Effectiveness and Shortfalls – | ABI, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.abi.org/feed-item/adr-act-of-1998-a-reflection-on-its-effectiveness-and-shortfalls
19. Alternative Dispute Resolution | Judiciaries Worldwide, accessed on August 7, 2025, http://judiciariesworldwide.fjc.gov/alternative-dispute-resolution
20. ALternative Dispute Resolution Success Story – US EPA, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/sites/static/files/2015-09/documents/cessuccess1.pdf
21. John S. McCain III National Center for Environmental Conflict Resolution – Project Case Summary – Udall Foundation, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.udall.gov/OurPrograms/Institute/ProjectCaseSummary.aspx?Project=119
22. Officials tout court ADR programs – American Bar Association, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2024/02/officials-tout-court-adr-programs/
23. EEOC Mediation and Settlement: FAQs for Employers – Axcet HR Solutions Blog, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://blog.axcethr.com/eeoc-mediation-and-settlement-faqs-for-employers
24. Written Testimony of Joyce E. Margulies Margulies Employment Law Consulting, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.eeoc.gov/meetings/meeting-march-20-2013-development-quality-control-plan-private-sector-investigations-and/margulies
25. Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs Making a Comeback at the IRS – EisnerAmper, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.eisneramper.com/insights/tax/alternative-dispute-resolution-programs-0725/
26. Appeals Improves Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs, But Barriers Remain, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/news/nta-blog/appeals-improves-adr-programs-but-barriers-remain/2025/05/
27. Chapter 5: Alternative Dispute Resolution and Meaningful – U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/envjust/ch5.htm
28. Effectiveness of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Federal Sector – GovInfo, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-Y3_EQ2-PURL-gpo235339/pdf/GOVPUB-Y3_EQ2-PURL-gpo235339.pdf
29. Litigation About Mediation: A Case Study in Institutionalization – Mitchell Hamline Open Access, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1523&context=facsch
30. ADR Program Evaluation Recommendations I. Introduction – US EPA, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/evalu_0.pdf
31. Telling Stories: How Alternative Dispute Resolution Could Have Saved Costs and a Business Relationship, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.fedbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Beyond-Alternative-pdf-1.pdf
32. Small Business Mediation – FindLaw, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.findlaw.com/smallbusiness/business-lawyer-resources/small-business-mediation.html
33. BLM Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and Appropriate Dispute Resolution – Bureau of Land Management, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/Services_CADREngagementandADRGuide.pdf
34. Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy Statement | US Department of Transportation, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.transportation.gov/civil-rights/civil-rights-library/alternative-dispute-resolution-policy-statement
35. Chapter 4. Alternative Dispute Resolution Options. A. ADR in General. ADR is a term widely used to describe methods and techni – Court of Federal Claims, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/cfc/files/osm_alternative_dispute_resolution_options.pdf
36. Using Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques | GSA, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.gsa.gov/directives-library/using-alternative-dispute-resolution-techniques