Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative Dispute Resolution Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) involves dispute resolution processes and techniques that fall outside the government judicial process. In the past there have been actions against ADR by entities of many political parties and their associates, despite this, in the past years ADR has gained an inclusive consensus among both the wider community and the legal profession. Indeed, many courts now require some parties to resort to ADR of some kind, usually mediation, before allowing the parties' cases to go to trial. The growing attractiveness of ADR may be clarified by the increasing workload of traditional courts, the perception that ADR imposes fewer costs than litigation, a preference for confidentiality, and the desire of some parties to gain greater control over selection of the individual or individuals who will decide their dispute. ADR has a wide choice of easily influenced and divergent processes for finding solutions to disputes, personified by structured negotiation and consensus. Arbitration is believed to be a familiar ADR technique, however, it is more of an official arbitration and arbitral technique - initially a confidential litigation process - which has more in common with litigation than the more original consensual processes that symbolize l 'ADR. As simplified by Angyal (Alternative Dispute Resolution, 1987, p. 11): "The fundamental difference between ADR and traditional litigation and arbitration techniques is that ADR techniques are used to produce a resolution of the dispute through a negotiated agreement while litigation and arbitration are processes through which a result is imposed on the parties."We can say that many problems arise with the terms. A former Chief Justice of New South Wales and one of Australia's powerful advocates of ADR, named Sir Laurence Street, commented that: “It is not really 'alternative' / It is not in competition with the established justice system. This is a further range of mechanisms within the overall aggregate mechanisms for resolving disputes. Nothing can be an alternative to the Sovereign in discharging the responsibility of resolving disputes between State and citizen or between citizen and citizen accommodate mechanisms that operate as additional or subsidiary processes in discharging the sovereign's responsibility. These allow the judicial system to devote its precious time and resources to the more solemn task of administering justice in the sovereign's name (Street, 'Il language of alternative dispute resolution' (1992) 66 Australian Law Journal, 194)