Dispute Settlement Counsel

Suppose I told you that if you want to resolve your dispute by suing and going to trial, it could take you two, three and maybe more years to get a verdict? Explain this typical litigation timetable to young entrepreneurs, and they’ll think you’re from another planet. Their typical response: “That doesn’t work for us.”

Or you review your recent bill from your lawyer – $600 for a status conference at court. You ask what the lawyer talked about at a two hour status conference @ $300 an hr. Your lawyer explains that he arrived at court at 9 am, the judge began calling cases at 9:20, 30 minutes later your case was called, both lawyers indicated that they were present. Twenty minutes later the docket call was completed, all those with status conferences were then directed to another courtroom upstairs, 10 minutes later another call of those present for status conferences was called and 20 minutes later you got in to meet with the magistrate or law clerk for a 20 minute status conference. Maybe, because your lawyer felt bad about this and didn’t bill you for the other hour he would normally bill you for the spent traveling to and from the court. It wasn’t your lawyer’s fault, and he had to get paid for his time, but you got 20 minutes of value for your $600.  

In today’s world, time efficiency resonates with everyone. People want value for their dollar. ADR processes like mediation and collaborative law are more time-efficient for many reasons, one of which being that the clients, with assistance from their lawyers, control the process. Together, you determine when to schedule mediation or collaborative sessions, decide upon agendas for these sessions, determine the length and the place of each session. You determine, with counsel from your lawyer and based on the specific facts and situation of your dispute, what exchange of information is necessary and relevant. You decide whether the use of independent, neutral experts can assist in identifying interests or developing options for both parties. Missing are exercises that take up lots of time with questionable returns: broad electronic discovery expeditions, depositions, interrogatories, motion practice, etc.

In our last blog entry on cost efficiency (January 24, 2009), we touched on time efficiency within the context of cost efficiency. In ADR approaches like collaborative law and mediation, every minute of the lawyer’s time is spent working on the goal of resolving the dispute. These methods are not shackled with a court’s schedule, so it’s easier to work with client’s time availability. Because these processes are designed to accomplish settlement, participants are not weighed down with time-consuming procedures that are designed to prepare for a trial, not for a negotiated settlement. Moreso, the time efficiency of ADR extends to preventing the time drain on the resources of an organization or business. They are spared the time lost when staff members prepare for depositions, hearings and trials, or when staff are preoccupied with the dispute during their water cooler, email, coffee break and lunch conversations.  The man hours lost in these activities add up quickly, often unnoticed, and resulting in diminished productivity and lowered morale, the collateral damage to a workplace environment impacted by a public, positional and adversarial conflict.

The bottom line is this: When parties and lawyers are focused from the outset of the dispute on working to resolve it in a way that satisfies the interests of the parties involved, it takes less time – a lot less time – and does not drain time from the workplace. We’re reducing years to months, and, if the parties and the circumstances require a faster pace, to weeks. These timeframes are within their control and within the capability of these more streamlined ADR processes.

Next week – Preserving Important Relationships