So, when you talk to a mediator or lawyer about their views and practices, ask them if they practice RDC or ADR, because while both are alternatives to the public justice system, the RDC`s competencies are the non-adversarial defence that people often seek to help them resolve their family dispute. An ADR-focused lawyer could simply be an opposing lawyer who is used to working in litigation outside of the public court system and believes that a legal view of a dispute is the only way to reach a resolution. In the past, I was alarmed when I talked to traditional lawyers who said they specialized in marc and then said we did the same. I usually say something in the melody: « But I allow interest-based negotiations between clients in a consensual environment, how does it feel like your services to appear before a private judge? » I find that many traditional lawyers don`t know that there is a movement in our legal culture to make dispute resolution more creative and tailored to the individual circumstances of clients, in a way that traditional legal processes simply cannot. In recent years, the term consensual dispute resolution has evolved in the legal community to distinguish certain legal services from alternative dispute resolution legal services. In other words, RDC refers to non-adversarial processes such as modal mediation and collaborative practice, and ADR refers to all other legal services that are outside the public justice system, such as private assessment, evaluative mediation, and arbitration (adversarial processes). The alternative in ADR meant an alternative to a public courtroom, not an alternative basis for resolving disputes. While the RDC consensus describes processes that use a completely different basis for resolving disputes, a consensual basis, meaning that all outcomes must be accepted by both « parties » and that the law cannot be used to force people to reach an agreement. Another way of saying this is, « In the RDC, the law does not control the outcome. » . .