ADR has both similarties and differences with conventional litigation. However, its focus on the rapid and low-cost resolution of disputes may result in inadequate attention to substantive law and its guidance function. As a result, the dramatic expansion of ADR could harm qualitative justice in a substantive way. Providing some judicial screening or substantive review of disputes receiving ADR processing might address this shortcoming, as long as it was succinct and did not introduce a new and costly procedure. In addition, ADR needs some procedural changes to improve the information it receives regarding individual cases and to foster accurate determinations of fact and law. Thus, the assumption that indiscriminate expansion of ADR would be beneficial is unjustified. Nevertheless, the current dynamic rivalry that exists between court adjudication and ADR represents a positive and healthy context in which to reappraise dispute processing and to understand the application of substantive norms to disputes. 264 footnotes.