Professor David Wexler's essay is certain to engender a sense of fear in appellate judges by its very suggestion that we should undertake such a sweeping reform of the appellate process. But the suggestions should-and will-beget the gnawing feeling that Professor Wexler's analysis of the articles by Professors Nathalie Des Rosiers and Amy Ronner, as well as the questions he poses, require us to explore these ideas further. For those of us who follow the "no advisory opinions" we might stop there. For thotshee acpapneolnl aotef courts who use a screening process to divert cases to an alternative dispute resolution track at the appellate level, the suggestion of a dialogue may be less intimidating. The probable salutary effects of a therapeutic jurisprudence are too important to ignore the idea. In fact, many jurists, only some intentionally, employ aspects
Gerald W. VandeWalle, A Sea Change in the Appellate Process?, 24 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 567 (2000).