English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Access to justice emphasizes the notion of making law available to all, from the most advantaged to the disempowered, and has generally focused on the legal process as a whole. Using the access to justice framework, Dispute System Design, and principles from the alternative dispute resolution movement, this Article proposes a multi-level model of access to justice, which underscores the various stages of a legal conflict, from its inception as a dispute, up to its resolution in an adjudication on the merits or an out of court settlement. Drawing on legal theory and using methodology from law and society scholarship, we propose solutions to each stage that ensure access to justice for disempowered litigants. Furthermore, as many judicial systems experience the vanishing trial phenomenon, wherein most legal conflicts do not result in a trial but end in various pretrial procedures, we focus primarily on the pretrial phase where judges employ ADR techniques to facilitate and promote consensual dispositions. Based on data collected through interviews with judges and court observations, we argue that a new public sphere has formed in the pretrial phase, where judges develop and apply their own understanding of access to justice. In our attempt to enhance the access to justice paradigm, we conclude by proposing an “ideal type” model of access to justice exemplified by the Canadian justice system in Québec, which is based on a conflict resolution perspective — instead of adjudication and litigation — as preferred forms of justice. We further draw inspiration from a public health perspective on law, * Post-doctoral Research Fellow, Judicial Conflict Resolution Lab, Faculty of Law, Bar-Ilan University. ** Professor; Primary Investigator, Judicial Conflict Resolution Lab, Faculty of Law, Bar-Ilan University (SJD, 2000, Harvard Law School). 2 FORDHAM URB. L.J. [Vol. XLVII which focuses on prevention as part of the solution to social problems, be they diseases or social conflict. Introduction  2 I. Access to Justice and Vanishing Trials 4 A. The Background of Access to Justice  4 B. The ADR Movement  9 C. The Dispute Perspective  12 D. Vanishing Trials  14 II. The Multilevel Model of the Development of Disputes and Access to Justice  17 A. The UNPIE Stage  18 B. Early Stages of Naming and Blaming  19 C. Entrance to Court: Institutional Management  21 D. Court-Annexed ADR  22 E. Pretrial Hearings  22 F. The Trial Stage  23 G. The Verdict Stage  24 H. The Execution of the Verdict  25 I. Avoiding Future Conflicts and Implementing the Norm  25 III. ADR in Pretrial Hearings  26 IV. An “Ideal Type”? The Canadian Civil Code Declaration  36 Conclusion  41

Multilevel Access to Justice in a World of Vanishing Trials: A Conflict Resolution Perspective