Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is now the centerpiece of Victorian and national civil justice policy. Advocates of ADR argue that it promotes access to justice. Skeptics assert that its primary aim is to cut costs, and that it compromises fundamental principles of fairness and transparency.

In recent years, there has been an outpouring of state and federal policy statements, reviews and reports on ADR, many of them linking ADR to access to justice. Some have recognised that if ADR is to deliver real justice for all members of society, participants must have access to support services, so that they can participate fully and fairly.

The rise of ADR presents significant challenges for the CLC movement, in both practical and philosophical terms. In some ways, CLC clients stand to benefit from ADR more than any other social group. CLC lawyers confirm that ADR can be very useful in resolving disputes quickly, cheaply and effectively. The self-help ethos of ADR also has some parallels in CLC community legal education.

At the same time, CLC experience suggests that some disputes, by their nature, will always be more appropriately resolved by adjudication. CLC clients are often profoundly disadvantaged, due to poverty, mental illness, homelessness, language difficulties, limited literacy or other factors. These disadvantages can prevent people from participating in ADR on an equal footing. It is vital that lowincome and disadvantaged parties have access to legal representation, interpreters and other support services whenever they engage in ADR. Where they cannot access these services, they should be exempt from mandatory ADR processes.

Even where parties have access to legal assistance and other services, adjudication will remain the better option in some cases. This may be due to irremediable power imbalances, or simply a party‟s desire for vindication of their legal rights. As CLCs have found, adjudication can be uniquely effective in exposing systemic injustice and driving progressive law reform.

In this sense, CLCs must reconcile ADR with their tradition of activism and their focus on systemic change. The individualised, private nature of ADR may limit CLCs‟ capacity to engage in strategic litigation and to use casework as a basis for law reform activities. It is important that courts and tribunals establish clear guidelines to facilitate public interest litigation, where there is a need for clarification of the law or a public denunciation of injustice.

To this end, CLC lawyers must engage with current policy debates over ADR, to help policymakers develop progressive and flexible ADR strategies. CLCs should work with State and federal governments to ensure that ADR is appropriately targeted, to maximise its benefits, while at the same time ensuring that it does not compromise the rights of disadvantaged people.