A judicial surgery....

I get troubled by huge legal fees in disputes, countless non-recoverable management costs, inappropriate use of adjudication, some immoral and unethical tactics and so on. Of course we must strive to avoid lengthy/costly disputes as best we can and only press the formal legal button as an absolute last resort, but once that button is pressed then that's it; you are in the grips of a process that isn't exactly designed to be time/cost effective. I can't see previous reforms have really made that step change difference in dispute resolution.

So here's some thoughts on how we could make it a more just process.....open a few 'dispute surgeries'. This is paid for by Govt who should get a good return on fewer formal disputes and less Court fees. The  'doctors' would be most likely be practical people - judges, the odd expert and so on. Their role (say 2 of these 'doctors' at a time) is to have a no more than say 60mins consultation with both parties in dispute (or at least one of them!). They would listen to the basic facts presented and how the parties would best like to resolve the dispute then make a decision as to the most appropriate means to resolve the dispute - it could be mediation, conciliation, adjudication, arm wrestling or straight to arbitration or litigation.

Rather than force us through adjudication which seems to me to be utterly inappropriate and massively abused in many instances I hear of, the 'doctor(s)' writes a prescription and the parties book an appointment at the chemist to get their dispute solving medicine. I would love the 'doctor(s)' to be able to say the sum in dispute is £100k so the parties cannot each spend more than say £40k in costs (or whatever) preparing for the hearing (or if they do they bear them). We get appropriate dispute resolution decided by sensible experts with a sensible cap on the input from both parties in getting to the truth as quickly as possible

Sensible or stupid; possible or impossible (as too many self-interests)?