The working hypothesis of ADR is that it produces superior results compared to court judgments or conventional settlements: it permits a search for creative solutions in which both parties benefit, it minimizes difficulties arising from lawyers' self-interests, it can be more systematic than conventional settlement negotiations, and decisions are more likely to be based on the merits of the dispute. In addition, ADR reduces burdens both on the court and on the disputants in terms of time and costs. While the best use of ADR may be to resolve cases that are extremely difficult or costly, ADR techniques are also valuable in settling multiparty disputes that do not easily fit into the two-sided contour of the adversary system. Future research into ADR should examine those factors which distinguish cases amenable to ADR from those better dealt with through traditional adjudication. 60 footnotes.