THE RANGE OF PRESENT APPROACHES FOR HANDLING EVERYDAY GRIEVANCES -- SMALL CLAIMS COURT, PUBLIC REGULATION, AND GOVERNMENT-FUNDED LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE POOR -- ARE DISCUSSED AND EVALUATED. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE INADEQUACIES OF THESE APPROACHES OR THEIR DOMINATION OR CONTROL BY POWERFUL AND WEALTHY INFLUENCES RENDER THEM INEFFECTIVE IN RESOLVING DISPUTES SATISFACTORILY FOR THE AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL. ARBITRATION STRUCTURES AND CREDIBLE GRIEVANCE HEARINGS ARE EXAMINED AS RELATIVELY RECENT ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE DISPUTES OUTSIDE OF FORMAL COURT STRUCTURES. IT IS INDICATED THAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO OR INSTITUTING MINIMAL CHANGE IN DISPUTE RESOLUTION WILL LEAD TO INCREASED PUBLIC APATHY, PROBABLY RESULTING IN AN EXPLOSION OF VIOLENT REACTION WHEN EXPLOITATION BECOMES INTOLERABLE. THE BURDEN IS PLACED UPON THE LEGAL PROFESSION TO CHANGE ITS INFLEXIBLE COMMITMENT TO TRADITIONAL FORMAL COURT PROCEDURES AS THE PRINCIPAL APPROACH TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION, WHILE OBSTRUCTING REFORM ON THE BASIS OF ENTRENCHED SELF-INTEREST. IT IS URGED THAT THE LEGAL PROFESSION CREATE FORUMS THAT CAN RESOLVE DISPUTES BETWEEN DISTANT, UNEQUAL PARTIES WITH FAIRNESS AND CREDIBILITY. THIRD PARTIES, SUCH AS OMBUDSMEN, PUBLIC OFFICEHOLDERS, CONSUMER COMPLAINT CENTERS, AND THE MEDIA, AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION, ARE URGED TO INFORM THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE EXISTENCE AND FUNCTIONS OF SUCH FORUMS. THESE STRATEGIC THIRD PARTIES WOULD ALSO REFER COMPLAINTS TO THE APPROPRIATE RESOURCE, MONITOR THE OPERATION OF DISPUTE PROCESSING MECHANISMS, AND INTERVENE WHEN NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF PARTIES OR TO MODIFY MECHANISMS TO MEET CHANGING NEEDS. IT IS HOPED THAT LEGISLATURES MIGHT BE PERSUADED TO VIEW LEGAL CONSULTATION AND REPRESENTATION THE WAY THEY VIEW MEDICAL CARE -- AS A NECESSITY THAT, FOR SOME PEOPLE, MUST BE PROVIDED FROM PUBLIC FUNDS. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED.