Observing judges in action in the Florence, Tel-Aviv, and London first-instance courts, we find that settlement-related transplants that could be interpreted as broadening the judicial role and providing meaningful modes of dispute resolution for disputants in fact often constrict the judicial role, causing both the courtroom and court-related ADR processes to become forums for efficiency-based negotiation. In England, the disintegration of the judicial role is most apparent, as the promotion of settlement has led to obligatory measures preceding the filing of a claim, leaving judges only a marginal percentage of disputes to deal with. We show that the three observed legal systems may be viewed in general terms as presenting three sequential stages of the judicial role, with a possible trend toward disintegration. In addition, the legal systems may offer three transitional views of the tension between efficiency and justice and the way it unfolds. The research provides insights on the role of legal transplants and the impetus for their transformation, and the ways they affect and are affected by the surrounding legal culture.