Experience over the last 10 years suggests that many people are unhappy with the way justice is obtained in the United States. The growth in new dispute resolution processes responds to the demand due to the interest and willingness on the part of judges to experiment with new ways of doing business. In addition, alternative dispute resolution may save money, relieve congestion in courts, and may improve justice, particularly when disputes can be resolved in nonadversarial forums. A closer relationship between dispute resolvers and the courts offers a number of advantages. These include (1) the courts are a ready source cases for dispute resolution programs, (2) a relationship with the courts will help mitigate the second class justice charges related to out-of-court dispute resolution programs, (3) courts can also oversee the enforceability of an agreement, and (4) court-connected programs are more likely to be institutionalized than private forums. The formulation of a theory that advances dispute resolution as a complementary approach to the formal justice system, and not as an alternative to it, is recommended. The role that courts and legislatures can play is set forth, as are issues that dispute resolution reformers need to address. A review of demonstration projects in New Jersey illustrating the principles of dispute resolution is included. (Author abstract modified)