A paradox seems self-evident lately between (a) the state of New York’s admirable efforts to prioritize alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as a means to reduce litigation in our courts, versus (b) decisional law in New York that (i) calls into question basic tenets of matrimonial practice that have been accepted by practitioners for years on end, and (ii) keeps open the door to more litigation.
That paradox is perhaps best illustrated as follows: The Administrative Board of the Courts in New York is seeking public comments on a proposal to adopt new rules that would establish presumptive ADR in “all civil disputes.” While there are various opt-outs to presumptive ADR that are noted in the Memorandum that seeks public comments on the proposal, it is no doubt an attempt to find a way to reduce the existing burden on the court system that derives from unrelenting litigation.
