On Nov. 9, the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution honored Russell C. Deyo, vice president and general counsel of Johnson & Johnson, at CPR's third Corporate Leadership Award Dinner. For more information, see the CPR News column opposite. Below is an edited version of the evening's keynote speech by U.S. District Court Judge Joseph A. Greenaway Jr., with whom Deyo had worked at J&J headquarters in New Brunswick, N.J., before his appointment to the federal bench.
* * * When [Russell Deyo] asked me to speak tonight, I accepted with some trepidation, and frankly, I was somewhat taken aback.
God willing, my retirement date from the bench will be 2022, and I wasn't expecting to bone up on ADR just yet. However, I thought that one of the topics that might be of some interest is the future of ADR. Specifically, whether, outside of those claims and causes of action uniquely suited for resolution in the courts, could ADR evolve to become the principal method of dispute resolution?
Let me elaborate on that point. Clearly, certain causes of action and claims can only be resolved within the confines of the court system. If a constitutional claim is raised, or a remedy is sought that falls within the parameters of a court's power, in that circumstance ADR may not be appropriate. The remedies sought through such actions, injunctive or otherwise, are uniquely within the province of the courts. In these instances, ADR is neither possible, nor preferred as a method of dispute resolution.
Before contemplating whether ADR can become the principal method of dispute resolution outside of those areas just mentioned, it may be worthwhile to take a moment to review how we got to this point in the development of ADR. Some would argue that the rise or explosion of litigation in the second half of the 20th century led inexorably to the rise of