Have women improved the way law works by encouraging non-confrontational systems such as negotiation and arbitration, or have women lost their voices and the backing of the public by allowing their cases to be settled early through ADR? There is a case to be made for both. See, generally, feminism and negotiation and feminism and ADR.
Women in the law have, in general, brought a softer, healing touch to situations in, for example, family law, where men used to proverbially butt heads and accomplish nothing but angering each side. Where conflict used to arise now settlement is achieved, and keeping suits from reaching litigation helps the healing process by not airing dirty laundry in the public arena. However, in cases such as sexual harassment, sometimes it's more helpful to air the laundry, to prevent such acts from taking place again in the future. In those cases, ADR can act as the old boy's club, stifling women's discourse and winning the battle while losing the war. Thus it is useful to notice that ADR can be a feminist's friend or a feminist's enemy, depending on the facts at hand. But I feel strongly that women as a whole have improved the legal system by emphasizing comprimise instead of competition, emphasizing a win-win situation instead of a win-lose. That is the true point of settlement.