Book Review Alternate Dispute Resolution in Connecticut's Courts: Hon. Beverly J. Hodgson, Judge of the Superior Court, and Louis I. Parley, of the New Haven Bar. the Atlantic Law Book Co. (west Hartford, Connecticut). 1998. 256 Pp. $135.00
| Publication year | 2021 |
| Pages | 314 |
73 CBJ 314. BOOK REVIEW ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN CONNECTICUT'S COURTS: Hon. Beverly J. Hodgson, judge of the Superior Court, and Louis I. Parley, of the New Haven bar. The Atlantic Law Book Co. (West Hartford, Connecticut). 1998. 256 pp. $135.00
Louis Parley shared with me the insight that he wanted to include in this book a reference to the historic meeting between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr as an example of alternate dispute resolution. When I asked judge Hodgson about this, she recalled the Arthurian legend of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight as containing another notable, yet impractical, means to resolve disagreements. As entertaining as these stories might be, neither of them made it into, this volume, which is limited to the alternative resolution processes regularly addressed by the Connecticut courts. Obviously, our courts do not countenance trial by combat as an acceptable method of resolving disagreement. Yet, this necessary limitation to the perspective of the courts illustrates a paradox of judicially controlled alternate dispute resolution.
In fact, one might view the title of this book, "Alternate Dispute Resolution in Connecticut's Courts," as referencing this inherent contradiction. Most disputes among people are resolved without the intervention of any judicial process, and many more should be. The methods by which this occurs are as diverse as the personalities of the people involved; this is a part of everyday life. It is only from the perspective of a jury trial, an important guarantee of freedom and the basic function of the court system, that everything else is alternative. It would be more accurate to view any court intervention as a necessary evil and a jury trial as the last, best alternative for the resolution of intractable disagreements. Times being what they are, we have reversed not only the definitions, but also our expectations as to the role of the courts in resolving disputes.
We do not have the resources or the will to try to a judge or a jury all of the disputes that wind up in court, and it turns out that many of them do not need to be tried at all. Yet, perhaps because of the breakdown of other...
To continue reading
Request your trial