The convergence of the forces of national competition among ideologically diverse political parties with the development of a squatter settlement movement brought the issue of neighborhood courts to national attention. In the face of Congressional stalemate over a national decentralization, two local experiments emerged, one employing professional judges holding regular informal hearings beyond their normal judicial duties for poor urban residents, the other involving left-organized squatter settlements' establishment of their own “extra-official” court systems using locally elected lay judges. The organizational and political contexts of the two, and their implicit ideological distinctions, led to somewhat different caseloads and distinct dispute processing styles. The professional court tended to routinize disputes, arbitrate, and rely on state police power; the lay court tended to mediate, focus upon sociological and political causes of disputes, and use formal and informal enforcement power. Each encountered severe constraints inhibiting development and institutionalization. These stemmed from lack of organizational resources and clear-cut goals, and the priorities of the organizational contexts in which they attempted to function. These priorities were, in turn, reflected in the class-based conflict encompassing Chilean politics during the Allende period.