Authorization for ADR, either through local rules or Civil Justice Reform Act Plans, has grown rapidly in the Federal district courts over the past several years, and the litigation environment is more sympathetic to ADR today than just a few years ago. The purpose of ADR may be answered differently, according to whether the answerer is a disputant or a court administrator. Achieving a balance between court interests and disputant interests in ADR requires an examination and understanding of the effects of ADR. Some issues that must be considered are whether ADR is speedier, more satisfactory, and less expensive that traditional court mechanisms; whether ADR improves access to justice for those who cannot afford expensive litigation; the nature of the trade-offs between the advantages of ADR and traditional adjudication; whether ADR lessens the burdens on the jury system or obstructs access to jury trials, and whether ADR lightens the burden on the courts. The courts, both as individual courts and as an institution, confront a series of challenges as they consider and adopt ADR procedures. One is to select in each particular case a procedure appropriate to the needs of that case. It is here that the close link between ADR and case management becomes visible.