I actually think that the subtext of the question provides much in way of answer. Shakespeare might not present much in way of trials and adjudication because Lear, himself, undergoes his own self- inflicted arbitration. In the midst of the storm and in the narrative, itself, Lear comes to the understanding that he, himself, failed as a father and as a ruler. He gains insight into himself and his own life that is validated by the story's ending of a brief, but redemptive reconciliation between he and Cordelia. Bond's work is more modern in its approach. While there is a trial and some type of legal framework adopted, in terms of Cordelia establishing boundaries for her father, it does not provide anything in way of moral redemption and a sense of ethical restoration. Cordelia ends up becoming far more brutal than her other two sisters and is quite content with her father being silenced and even killed. The notion of a "trial" is something that should provide resolution. Shakespeare does not feature something like this because the moral redemption is self- derived, something that Lear gains himself. Bond features a trial or an accepted and formal understanding, but this is nothing that provides anything in way of justice. The notion of restoration and moral or ethical order is absent in Bond's work, making it more modern and reflective of a modern setting where divergence is more present than convergence. This craving for unity and symmetry is what Shakespeare demonstrates to satisfy the audience, and is something that Bond denies. It is this basis that provides some of the fundamental difference between both works.