I don’t believe Bhushan’s attribution of motives applies in the United States, and rather hope it’s not true of India, either. Still, it’s hard to argue with his broader point. Arbitration, mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) are valuable only insofar as they provide something the judicial system doesn’t.
New Mexico’s Rules of Civil Procedure state that they are intended “to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.” If the legal system governed by those rules lived up to their statement of good intentions, ADR would be a niche service, of value only to those with an overriding desire to keep their affairs out of the public record. Instead, in New Mexico as in Hyderabad, ADR is a thriving industry. Do an internet search for “New Mexico ADR” and you’ll see what I mean.
The amount of money pouring into ADR is an objective measure of the shortcomings of our civil justice system. We have a parallel private system of justice because it succeeds where the public system funded by our tax dollars fails.