New Hampshire Citizens Commission on State Courts 
Draft Recommendations for Consideration March 13, March 20 
Recommendation #1 
Research Committee: Alternative Dispute Resolution 
Recommendation: 
That the Court recognize the effectiveness of the limited ADR programs 
presently in existence and recognize further the potential for further 
improvement. That the Court review the ADR programs at every court 
level and dedicate the leadership, energy and resources to the 
construction, operation and review of ADR systems with well established 
lines of authority and accountability designed to increase the efficiency 
of the judicial system to serve the needs of the public. 
Rationale: 
The oldest ADR system (Rule 170) has been successful in resolving 
50%-65% of civil cases in spite of a lack of funding, supervision 
resources and encouragement from the judicial system. That level of 
success, however, is declining. With proper staffing, resources training, 
education and oversight, the ADR system can be revised (where 
necessary) and expanded across the entire court system in an effort to 
reduce conflict, decrease costs and to improve public confidence in the 
ability of the court system to resolve disputes. 
Recommendation #2 
Research Committee: Alternative Dispute Resolution 
Recommendation: 
The committee recommends that the Supreme Court establish a Court Office 
of Dispute Resolution, institutionalizing ADR in the court. The office should 
be responsible for overseeing the development, administration and 
monitoring of all court annexed ADR programs. In addition, the Office 
should be responsible for establishing system wide standards of conduct for 
neutrals; developing criteria for training and qualifications of neutrals; and 

collaborating with other individuals and organizations including 
governmental units to increase access to dispute resolution services 
Rationale: 
To effectively manage existing court ADR programs and foster greater use 
of ADR, the court must establish an ADR office responsible for these tasks. 
Without such an office no direct responsibility exists for the development of 
new programs, monitoring of existing programs, and establishing ADR 
standards of practice. This failure results in poorly managed programs. 
These problems are over come with the creation of an office charged with 
monitoring, evaluating and the development new programs. The creation of 
an office allows for the court to have greater ADR expertise. In addition, the 
creation of an Office of Dispute Resolution will also allow the Supreme 
Court to establish broad court wide ADR policy ensuring that all levels of 
court adhere to its policy’s including greater use of ADR. Along with these 
benefits there are economies of scale with having an office and person with 
these responsibilities. 
Recommendation #3 
Research Committee: Alternative Dispute Resolution 
Recommendation: 
The committee recommends that the court system update and improve the 
Rule 170 Program. This highly respected program is fourteen years old and 
is showing signs of its age. It needs updating, making it mandatory in all 
counties as well as addressing deficiencies in how it is currently 
administered. It can no longer rely on the use of volunteer mediators which 
detracts from the development of a highly skilled mediator pool. This update 
must be given priority within the court system. 
Rationale: 
The Rule 170 Program is in a state of slow decline. The settlement rates are 
declining because many of the current locations have not adopted the 
following “best practices” in the administration of this program including: 
allowing sufficient time for the mediations, providing appropriate rooms, 
and removing unskilled mediators from the rosters. In addition, it is 
becoming more difficult to find attorneys who will volunteer their time at 
various court locations; there is no budget to train new mediators; and more 

complaints are being made about the mediations than in prior years. These 
problems persist because of deficiencies in the rule; a lack of overall 
management of the program and lack of judicial commitment in some 
locations. All of these can be overcome by updating the program and 
establishing an individual or office charged with management of the 
program. When done we can expect to achieve the following results: 
• Increased party satisfaction with the legal process 
• Provide affordable justice to the parties 
• Reduce protracted and bitter litigation 
• Empower parties to make decisions reducing future litigation between 
the same parties. 
• Improve court efficiency