ADR and the legal professions in planning and environmental disputes: strategic role positioning and institutional barriers

This article investigates the limited uptake of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) among UK-based lawyers engaged in environmental and planning disputes. Drawing on a mixed-methods study comprising 120 survey responses and 12 in-depth interviews, it explores how legal professionals interpret and negotiate ADR within a professional field structured by adversarial norms. Three interlocking themes are identified: institutional disincentives that discourage early settlement; strategic role positioning, in which lawyers align with adversarial expectations to preserve legitimacy; and ethical ambivalence, reflecting uncertainty about responsibility and procedural justice in informal forums. These findings challenge the notion that ADR underuse is simply a function of awareness or training deficits. Instead, they reveal deeper institutional and symbolic dynamics constraining ADR's legitimacy in UK legal practice. The article situates these patterns within a broader sociological framework and contrasts them with successful ADR integration in Australia's Land and Environment Court. It argues for a shift in professional norms and institutional support to normalise mediation as a credible and ethically grounded mode of dispute resolution in environmental law.