Consultation, according to Webster's Dictionary, is a meeting to discuss, decide, or plan something—which perfectly describes the Federal Judicial Center's Program for Consultations in Dispute Resolution.

The FJC introduced the program last year to provide on-site consultations to district and bankruptcy courts on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes. The consultation program is designed to help courts that wish to establish a court-based ADR program or enhance or examine an existing program. Consultations are offered in support of Judicial Conference policy and the ADR Act of 1998, which requires each district court to implement its own ADR program.

To date, 20 courts have inquired about consultations, and judges, staff, and attorneys in 10 courts have participated in consultations. Another four to five courts will participate in the coming months. Program consultants, who include judges, ADR program administrators and academics, all have substantial, hands-on experience with court ADR programs. Each consultation typically begins when a representative from the court calls the FJC to discuss the court's needs.

"What do they want? What are the goals of the consultation? Those are the questions that start the discussion," said Donna Stienstra, FJC senior researcher and author of a number of publications on ADR. "Then, we ask, how do we make the consultation happen? Which consultants will be most helpful to the court, and who should they meet with? Our purpose is not to push courts to do more ADR than they want but to help those who want to do more do it as effectively and economically as possible."

When Judge Donetta W. Ambrose became chief judge in the Western District of Pennsylvania last year, she wasn't unhappy with the court's ADR program, but at the same time, she felt it wasn't particularly effective. She contacted the FJC for a consultation.

"ADR is an important component in a system where litigation is costly and can be lengthy," said Ambrose. "I wanted everyone thinking about ADR, not because I want fewer cases, but because we want to do what we can to make the judicial process better for people who use the courts."

In the Western District of Pennsylvania, the ADR consultation began with a meeting of all the court's judges, followed the next day by a meeting with members of the bar. The consultants were a district court judge and a clerk of court, both from districts with highly regarded ADR programs.

"The consultation was invaluable, first, just to hear from experts  about their successes, their methods and ideas," said Ambrose. "They were very knowledgeable and their questions and answers got everyone focused on ADR."

Thanks to the consultation, the court's rules committee has researched rules of robust programs and is drafting proposed rules. An ADR judge has been appointed and the court is exploring the possibility of an ADR coordinator position in the clerk's office. "Funds are short," said Ambrose, "but we're seeing what we can do."

The Eastern District of New York benefited from a quite different consultation. There, a meeting with the ADR administrator, ADR Magistrate Judge Robert Levy, and the court's Information Technology staff, led to the design of an electronic management system for the ADR program that will be incorporated into the Case Management/Electronic Case Files System.

"Although our ADR program was well-established," said Levy,  "we wanted to take advantage of the new electronic case filing system to track cases for judges, litigants and mediators more efficiently.  The consultants helped us develop a more automated case management system that is proving invaluable in this time of staffing shortages and budget cutbacks."

Chief Bankruptcy Judge Sarah Sharer Curley also requested an ADR program consultation for the bankruptcy court in Arizona. The consultation was a success, according to Curley, for many of the same reasons Ambrose cited, especially the ability of the expert consultants to share their experiences.

"Our consultation included both a judge and an ADR administrator who had long-term ADR programs in their courts," said Curley. "They gave us a perspective from the judicial and administrative standpoint. And they helped us explore the successes and the problems in their programs. That was really important to the process."

A major concern of the Arizona bankruptcy court was whether ADR works with pro se litigants. In Arizona, approximately 35 percent of the bankruptcy litigants are pro se. The program advisors, with personal experience behind them, were able to reassure the court's judges and practicing attorneys.

"With assistance from practicing attorneys, we put together a general order for the court," said Curley. "In April, we presented the order to our judges. We'll train attorneys in ADR at the state bar meeting in June. And we plan to have our ADR program in place by this fall."

Curley, Ambrose, and Levy are clear on one point. "We'd never be at this stage without the consultation," said Ambrose.