2000•University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository (University of Missouri)Open access

Constitutional Gravity: A Unitary Theory of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Public Civil Justice

Richard C Reuben

Open full text 23 citations

Abstract

Under the traditional bipolar model, civil dispute resolution is generally divided into two spheres: trial, which is public in nature and therefore subject to constitutional due process, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which is private in nature and therefore not subject to such constraints. In this article, Professor Richard Reuben proposes a unitary understanding of public civil dispute resolution, one that recognizes that ADR is often energized by state action and thus is constitutionally required to comply with minimal but meaningful due process standards. Depending upon the process, such standards might include the right to an impartial forum, the right to present evidence and confront adverse evidence, and a qualified right to counsel. Reuben concludes that the effect of the ADR movement should be the expansion of our concept of public civil justice, rather than its contraction through privatization.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Under the traditional bipolar model, civil dispute resolution is generally divided into two spheres: trial, which is public in nature and therefore subject to constitutional due process, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which is private in nature and therefore not subject to such constraints. In this article, Professor Richard Reuben proposes a unitary understanding of public civil dispute resolution, one that recognizes that ADR is often energized by state action and thus is constitutionally required to comply with minimal but meaningful due process standards. Depending upon the process, such standards might include the right to an impartial forum, the right to present evidence and confront adverse evidence, and a qualified right to counsel. Reuben concludes that the effect of the ADR movement should be the expansion of our concept of public civil justice, rather than its contraction through privatization.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 23 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Under the traditional bipolar model, civil dispute resolution is generally divided into two spheres: trial, which is public in nature and therefore subject to constitutional due process, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which is private in nature and therefore not subject to such constraints. In this article, Professor Richard Reuben proposes a unitary understanding of public civil dispute resolution, one that recognizes that ADR is often energized by state action and thus is constitutionally required to comply with minimal but meaningful due process standards. Depending upon the process, such standards might include the right to an impartial forum, the right to present evidence and confront adverse evidence, and a qualified right to counsel. Reuben concludes that the effect of the ADR movement should be the expansion of our concept of public civil justice, rather than its contraction through privatization.

Key concepts: Unitary state, Political science, Economic Justice, Law, Law and economics, Alternative dispute resolution, Dispute resolution, Sociology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Constitutional Gravity: A Unitary Theory of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Public Civil Justice — Research Paper | ScholarLens