Consensus on a cure for the ailments of the civil justice system may be in short supply, but there is relative agreement over the disease itself: civil justice is too expensive and time consuming.

Nonetheless, as recently as five years ago few people in this country would have been looking for alternatives to conventional courtroom dispute resolution.

But times and attitudes are changing quickly.

Last week, the Centre for Dispute Resolution celebrated its fifth anniversary with an announcement that the group now has 300 members and has dealt with some 900 cases.In the same week as CEDR's birthday celebrations, the Legal Action Group brought together three of north America's leading experts on alternative dispute resolution.

They came to contribute to the LAG conference on civil justice and for a general chewing over of the Woolf report.

But what proved equally interesting, however, was their perspective, drawn from about ten years of experience, on ADR.As director of the Middlesex Court multi-door courthouse in Boston, Barbara Stedman has seen a lot of ADR in practice.

The scheme has been running since 1989, when it was launched with the stated goal of 'improving the administration of justice through more timely resolution of disputes, greater cost-effectiveness for the courts and the consumers, and increased public satisfaction with process and outcome'.

In principle, Boston's multi-door model was designed to provide a comprehensive approach to resolving disputes, delivering a variety of resolution services through a single co-ordinating body -- the trial court.During the last seven years, the multi-door court has provided alternative services of some description to more than 6000 cases.

Last year's figures show that 1200 cases went through an initial screening process during which 4% settled straight away.

Some 56% of the screened cases went through one of the programme's dispute resolution doors.

Of those, nearly three-quarters settled within two months.According to Ms Stedman, the remaining cases either had a partial settlement or went on to settle before a trial date.

And a recent survey of users found that most of the participants said the process was 'highly beneficial even if it did not result in immediate settlement'.So what are the signs hanging over the doors in the Boston courthouse? The main ports of call are case evaluation, mediation and arbitration.

At the scheme's birth, nearly all cases went to case evaluation, a process in which the parties or their lawyers present a summary of the case to a neutral third party for an independent determination of strengths and weaknesses.

The evaluator would then assist the parties in settlement negotiations.However, as the programme has evolved, mediation has become the most frequently used form of ADR at the multi-door courthouse.

This process, too, involves a neutral third party who assists the disputing parties in resolving the dispute through a series of joint sessions and private meetings, or 'caucuses'.The reaction of the local legal profession has been the key to the success of the Boston scheme.

Ms Stedman maintains the region's lawyers responded warmly and positively from the early days.'A lot of lawyers went to law school because they like to problem solve,' explains Ms Stedman.

'And this [ADR] gets you into the heart of collaborative problem solving.'Ms Stedman is a firm believer that mediation is simply another skill for lawyers to have in their professional portfolios.

'Those who enjoy advocating for the clients, enjoy having another option.' Indeed, Ms Stedman is quick to point out that the Boston scheme should not be seen as an attempt to abandon traditional litigation completely.

'The multi-door concept is really "most appropriate dispu te resolution" not "alternative dispute resolution" and trial is one of the doors.'North American ADR advocates have had to fight some resistance from lawyers.

Carrie Menkel-Meadow, professor of law and director of the Centre for Conflict Resolution at the University of California at Los Angeles, helped to organise a local scheme.

At first, Los Angeles lawyers were highly suspicious and wary of ADR proponents, regarding them as a threat to their practices.But, says Ms Menkel-Meadow, the profession was eventually won over by arguments which will probably have sway on this side of the Atlantic as well.

'We explained that it [ADR] meant more work for lawyers because they could be both an advocate and someone who was good inside a mediation process.

Lawyers could learn how to be mediators.'Both she and Ms Stedman are careful not to suggest that ADR is a wonder panacea, suitable for all legal disputes.

For example, Ms Menkel-Meadow points to highly emotive cases involving issues of race discrimination as being unsuitable for mediation.

'Sometimes there is right and wrong and there must be a ruling.

Even in a relatively smaller case, one side will want a ruling and if one party feels that way, then ADR will not work.'Alternative dispute resolution is also difficult to apply to cases involving a party who is not legally represented.

If a litigant in person is sitting on one side of the mediation table, it can be extremely difficult for the third party mediator to remain neutral and resist the temptation to advise the unrepresented party.And the third north American expert -- Gary Watson QC, a professor at Canada's Osgoode Hall Law School -- also fires off a caution.

He warns of a burgeoning 'ADR industry' which will ultimately become just as expensive to maintain as traditional litigation.

'ADR in north America is a multi-million dollar business.

Most of it is spent on the advertising of programmes to teach lawyers how to become mediators, advertising mediation services and writing books about ADR.

But there has been very little focus on training lawyers on what their role should be in mediation.'