MULTI-DOOR JUSTICE AND PROCEDURAL SPEED: OVERCOMING EXCESSIVE LITIGATION THROUGH ADAPTING DISPUTE RESOLUTION METHODS

Abstract

This article examines multi-door justice as a theoretical paradigm capable of addressing excessive litigation and promoting a qualitative understanding of procedural celerity in contemporary Brazilian law. It starts from the observation that the traditional adjudicatory model, centered on state jurisdiction as the ordinary and almost exclusive response to conflicts, shows signs of insufficiency in the face of complexity, massification and the heterogeneity of social demands. It investigates to what extent multi-door justice, understood as a system for the adequate treatment of conflicts, represents not merely a rational reorganization of the justice system, but a reformulation of access to justice itself. The research is bibliographical and documentary in nature, based on classical and contemporary doctrinal studies on access to justice, excessive litigation, adequate dispute resolution methods, procedural efficiency and consensuality. It argues that procedural celerity, in this context, is not reduced to the mere acceleration of proceedings, but depends on choosing the method most compatible with the nature of the dispute, the interests involved and the expectation of effective social pacification. It concludes that multi-door justice, when conceived through the criterion of adequacy, rationalizes judicial services, reduces the burden on the Judiciary and improves the quality of protection, shifting the legal system from a culture of judgment to a culture of adequate resolution.