Dispute Settlement Counsel

What do speed limits and dispute resolution processes have in common?

They have to be right for the situation.

I was driving on the Mass. Pike this week, thinking about the idea of one speed limit for everyone.  Speed limits are established for the masses; a good average speed is set that is reasonable.  On the Mass. Pike for example, the posted speed is either 65 mph or 55 mph.

For excellent drivers under good driving conditions – light traffic, good visibility, dry road surface, 65 mph is probably too slow.  For drivers that have diminished reflexes, skills, sight or attention span, 65 mph is likely too fast.

Several external factors impact what is a good speed: Tire tread, engine responsiveness, things dangling or pasted onto windows that impact visibility, weather conditions, traffic volume, road surface, what else the driver is doing: texting, keying in numbers on a phone or destination on a GPS, deeply engrossed in conversations or thought, eating, putting on makeup, reading something, drunk, high on drugs, really agitated, reaching into the back for something, etc.

The right speed depends more on the situation and the circumstances than the posted speed limit.  The same is true for how we approach resolving disputes. One speed, one process, one approach, does not fit every situation.

I work with people to resolve their disputes, so here’s an analogy between the notion of speed limits and the understanding most people have of how disputes get resolved.  It gives us a compelling reason to think about a better approach to resolving cases, and a process I have named IDR or “IDR⁴ or “Integrated Dispute Resolution”.  IDR⁴ is the core philosophy of the Zeytoonian Center for Dispute Resolution.

Most people that find themselves in a dispute hire a lawyer and go to court. That is what lawyers are traditionally trained to do: File suit or answer a complaint, follow the rules of civil procedure and take the client down the long, expensive, painful, slow, damaging and cumbersome road of litigation.  The problem is that most of the time, that’s not the best road for that client and that case.  Unless you need an injunction or a court order, court should be your last resort, not your first stop.

Every situation, every set of parties and every set of external factors in a dispute is different.  Time, budget, emotional bandwidth, the importance of preserving relationships, the need to control the process and the decision making, how creative the solutions need to be to really solve the problem – these vary with every new case.

Shouldn’t the process people use to resolve dispute be responsive to their unique circumstances? Wouldn’t it be better if we designed each approach to fit the client’s specific needs?

Of course it would be.  Every time I talk with people about this, they all have the same response: That makes complete sense.  And yet, people still use methods that really don’t fit their circumstances.  It’s like taking a square hole and trying to force their round situation into it.  It’s painful, it’s cumbersome, it’s damaging, and it doesn’t work well.  It’s like driving 45 when you should be driving 75.

That is why people hate litigation.  So know this:  There is a better way:  IDR and IDR⁴.

Next time: Why IDR is so good and so right for resolving disputes

One Response to “One speed doesn’t fit all –First in a series about IDR4”