This study discusses a survey conducted to evaluate a 1997 revision to Rule 17 of the Missouri Supreme Court, which allows judges to order cases to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proceedings. The authors surveyed lawyers to 'assess when and why they choose ADR...the effects of ADR on the litigation process...and how and when judges become involved in choosing ADR' (p.475). The document includes the 2002 Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee Report published by the Missouri Supreme Court, which includes information about the survey design, the attorneys surveyed, and conclusions drawn. The study concludes that attorneys think the rule revision is a helpful tool, helps save cost and time, and results in higher settlement rates. Despite these conclusions, lawyers are hesitant to incorporate ADR into their larger litigation strategy and many (though not the majority) wait more than a year before discussing ADR options with their clients (p.504). The authors further discuss challenges to institutionalization of ADR, such as judge and attorney attitudes and opinions towards the rule revision, minimal training availability and a lack of public awareness regarding ADR processes. Finally, the study analyzes mediation and other ADR processes, including arbitration, early neutral evaluation, summary jury trial and mini-trial, and provides recommendations for the "continued growth of ADR" in the civil litigation process (p.535).