Dispute Settlement Counsel

Author Archive

(second in a series)

Last blog post (Why aren’t more people using CL?), we noted that people in disputes often overlook a very important consideration:  how information is exchanged.  It is one of three critical questions when it comes to resolving disputes:

1. Are the parties willing to focus on resolution by intention and design and not go to court?
2. What is the most efficient process (the best fit) for your particular dispute situation?

So how do parties handle the exchange of relevant information?  Old school dispute resolution, via litigation, was the “hide the ball” approach, by which parties try to hide or minimize that information that hurts your position and hope the other side doesn’t find it.  At the same time, parties often exaggerate and shine the spotlight early and often on that information that supports their positions. Read the rest of this entry »

Lately some of us lawyers who use Collaborative Law (“CL”) in civil disputes other than divorce cases have been brainstorming about the expanded use of CL in employment, business, probate, construction and other areas of law.  In the spirit of transparency that is an important element of CL, we’ve focused on why more people don’t use CL to resolve their business or employment or other civil disputes. 

We know that CL is an efficient and agile process and is ideal for many disputes, especially those in which preserving relationships is important.  We also know that it is not the best process for every dispute.  For some cases, mediation may be better; for others arbitration and for still others, litigation.  For many disputes, often a hybrid approach works best, which may utilize some of the principles and techniques of CL, but not all of the elements of the widely accepted CL process model. 

Read the rest of this entry »

Part II (Part I on June 18, 2011)

In our last blog, we began the discussion of what ADR is and why people are steadily asking their lawyers to use processes like mediation and collaborative law.  We talked about arbitration becoming more and more like litigation.  We discussed how the economy, the influence of information technology and a better informed public all contribute to a shift away from the long, expensive and cumbersome litigation process to more sustainable models of dispute resolution.

This shift is forcing lawyers to change the way they serve their clients.  It is also pushing more lawyers toward training in mediation and collaborative law and adding these methods to their toolbox.  Clients, better informed and more empowered, are seeking out these processes that were the “alternatives” to litigation.  More and more, mediation, collaborative law and conciliation are the first choices and the “primary” ways to resolving conflict, while arbitration and court-based litigation are gradually becoming the alternatives that parties default to if they cannot resolve their dispute through the non-adversarial approaches.

In Australia, the legal community has already changed the references to reflect the growing demand for these more efficient methods.  Australia now uses the phrase “Primary Dispute Resolution”, or “PDR” to refer to mediation, collaborative law and conciliation, and uses the older term ADR to refer to either litigation or arbitration or the entire spectrum of dispute resolution approaches.  This same change has been encouraged in other places around the world. Read the rest of this entry »

Part 1 of 2 parts on PDR

In the language of the people, what we do at the Zeytoonian Center is work with people to resolve their disputes without going to court and without engaging in a process known as litigation.  We use different approaches like mediation, collaborative law, conciliation, case evaluation and our own Integrated Dispute Resolution (“IDR”) to help people solve their problem and we tailor that approach to the specific situation and circumstances of the people in that particular dispute.

In our materials and writings and presentations we make, you’ll hear three different acronyms thrown around:  “ADR”, “IDR” and a new one that we are going to start using now which will take the place of ADR, “PDR”.   Lay people get annoyed when lawyers talk in legal jargon, and rightly so, so I want to use these next two blog posts to explain what each one is, what each one means, and then ask you to join us in changing their meaning to reflect your interests and replace ADR with PDR.  We’ll explain what PDR is in the next blog.  We’ll save IDR for another blog post.

ADR stands for alternative dispute resolution.  ADR has included processes like mediation, arbitration, collaborative law, conciliation, etc.  Historically, lawyers have viewed ADR as the alternative to litigation.  As such, litigation has been the process of choice for lawyers.  In some instances, usually because it’s stated in the terms of a contract, businesses will use arbitration instead of the courts. Read the rest of this entry »

Have you ever thought negatively about a person or a situation based on information you thought was accurate but which turned out to be wrong?  I remember thinking certain things about another guy I went to school with and for over two years, I didn’t talk much with him except to be polite and civil.  Something triggered an opportunity for him and me to go out for beers or coffee and just talk about things that bothered us about each other.  It turned out both of our beliefs about each other were misconceptions, based on perceptions and assumptions we had never checked out until then.  We became the closest of friends and still are today.

This kind of thing happened over the weekend in my church.  There was some missed communications between people and some of the parishioners started to run with that, believing that what they perceived as a change in plans was orchestrated by what they believed to be a small but controlling group of parishioners.  Not being a big fan of small controlling groups in any organization, let alone in a church, I could relate to this view. But then I learned that one group perceived that I was a part of the small controlling group.  It dawned on me at that moment that the person or persons carrying that perception didn’t really know me very well.

Read the rest of this entry »

A dispute was swirling around a man and his followers who were promoting an alternative way of living, different from the norms of their time.  The man had just been betrayed by one of his insiders and the dispute was about to come to a head.  As authorities came to arrest him, a physical confrontation between sides broke out, but was quickly diffused by the man’s unconventional intervention between the parties.  Before it could escalate, the man not only stopped the fighting, but reached out and healed someone on the other side.

The confrontations in the Garden of Gethsemane offer a classic modeling of non-adversarial dispute resolution.  While rooted in Christian spirituality, the events have a universal message: It is possible for one to be zealous in holding his position or defending a right, continue to be an advocate for one view and stay the course with respect to pursuing one’s interests and goals, without taking up the fight.  And in the process, one may not only be able to treat those on the other side with respect, but do some healing. Read the rest of this entry »

What if your entire town made an official commitment to practicing legal wellness, for one year?  Or for that matter, your entire company?  Or your mission-based organization?  Or your family?

A couple of years ago I read an article in AARP Magazine about how Albert Lea, a small town of 18,000 in Minnesota, launched the AARP/Blue Zones Vitality Project.  The town made a commitment for one year to making changes in the way their residents ate, exercised, worked and played.  The guiding principle for the Blue Zones Project is to commit to four traits:  healthier diet, active lifestyle, clear sense of purpose and strong social networks.  A year later, when they went back to Albert Lea to see how things went, they saw that people wanted to keep it going and did just that.  The residents had logged 42,000 miles of walking, up from 37,558 logged a year earlier.  One resident noted that in one year, he increased his life expectancy from 52 years to 78 years. He noted that the project improved both his habits and his happiness.  Five months into the project, participating residents had lost an average of 3 pounds each and had added three years each to their life spans.

Now, take that same concept – a commitment of an entire town to practicing health wellness – but apply it to legal wellness.  For one year, what if town officials agreed that if there were any kind of municipal disputes, neither side would sue or go to court. Instead, participants committed to a pilot project in which they would act differently when they found themselves in disputes.  They agreed to first work together toward resolving it utilizing only non-adversarial dispute resolution processes.  The residents agreed also to commit to take any dispute they had to a designated center in the town or at the worksite, where, working with people trained in non-adversarial and interest-based dispute resolution, the parties worked through their issues together, through a series of negotiation sessions, guided by those trained to facilitate this kind of problem solving.  They also hired an ombudsperson to work discreetly, neutrally and confidentially with people having conflicts or problems in the workplace, in community organizations or in their families to diffuse them.  They utilized several preventive steps, training and educating.  They put policies and procedures in place to prevent certain disputes from occurring.  They put into their contracts dispute resolution clauses by which the parties agreed to try non-adversarial dispute resolution processes first, processes in which they controlled the outcome. Read the rest of this entry »