The inquiry begins with a debate about the role of the courts in society, and it then examines whether ADR procedures enhance or undermine that role and whether these alternatives provide any benefits to individual parties, to courts, or to society. The discussion addresses questions about the role of the courts and ADR's value and effects through a series of arguments in support of and in opposition to court-based ADR programs. Pro and con arguments address four propositions. One proposition is that a core function of the courts as public institutions is to serve the needs of individual litigants and thereby maintain public confidence in society's capacity for peaceful dispute resolution. A second proposition is that courts have a responsibility to use ADR when it can help save litigant and public resources while preserving fair procedures and outcomes. The third proposition states that to provide all litigants with access to alternative procedures and to guarantee the procedural protections litigants rightfully expect from courts, ADR should be available through publicly funded court-based programs. The fourth proposition states that alternative dispute resolution procedures should be presumptively mandatory in appropriate cases, but the right to trial must be preserved in all cases. courts should establish procedures to assist parties in selecting the appropriate procedure for managing and resolving their cases. The paper's purpose is not to come to a conclusion about the value of court-based ADR, but rather to inform the reader and policymaker through a summary of the points that can be made on each side of the issue. 1 table and 2 figures