Dispute Settlement Counsel

Archive for the ‘Business’ Category

In our last blog post, I suggested the good sense idea of having a primary care lawyer in one’s team of trusted advisors, as one would have a primary care physician, an accountant, a business or personal coach, and for some, a financial advisor.  There are, as we discussed, many advantages to having trusted legal counsel on board, someone who knows your business and family circumstances well, knows your priorities and goals, your disposition and who can give you good preventive and proactive advice, before you decide which legal path to travel.

Some readers pointed out that while that would be practical and helpful, unlike a primary care physician, which is most often covered and included in one’s medical benefits and health insurance, legal counsel is not usually included among the benefits offered by companies.  It’s an out of pocket cost to the user/client, one that many just can’t afford to include in their budgets.

That good point got me to thinking two thoughts:

1.  Yes, it is a costly service to add trusted legal counsel to a person or family or small business budget, but in the long run, it will most likely save hundreds, if not thousands of dollars.  It’s similar to paying a little more for organic food or fresh produce from small family farms as part of our preventive health approach to our bodies.  My grandfather, one of the wisest men I ever knew, used to teach us that there were two places you should never cut costs:  Food and shoes.

2.  Maybe companies and employers should consider offering this benefit to employees, something small that the company may not need to buy insurance to cover.  They should do it not only because it’s a good benefit to offer to their employees in trying to do right by them, but also because it’s probably going to be a cost savings to the company, for the very same, preventive, proactive reasons as it saves a person money.  When people utilize preventive law and avoid litigation, they not only save money, but also save time, time that would be taken off from work to attend to the demands of litigation or bigger legal problems. People also avoid the stress and emotional drain, the sense of being worn down by a legal dispute, especially one that goes into litigation.  These factors directly impact a person’s mental and emotional well-being and one’s productivity, energy level, focus and concentration in the workplace.  The combined cost of time off and unproductive, distracted work from an employee who is preoccupied and consumed by litigation is significant and detrimental to the workplace.

Read the rest of this entry »

I’m often asked how case evaluation is used to resolve a dispute.  The best way to explain is to tell about a case that was resolved using a case evaluator/mediator.

One important prerequisite is that the parties to the dispute – and their lawyers — have to want to resolve the matter quickly and approach it like a problem to solve, not a fight over who is right.  This is sometimes driven by the nature of the case, or by the ability of both parties to see that their interests are not best met by prolonged, expensive and cumbersome litigation.

In this homeowner-contractor dispute, both parties needed to get the issues about payment and continued or discontinued work resolved quickly.  The homeowners’ family life was being disrupted the longer the dispute remained unresolved and the contractor’s ability to earn more money and deploy his resources effectively hung in the balance.   Both lawyers realized that neither client would benefit by the costs and length of litigation, and the matter was not a clear cut case in which one side was clearly right.

I suggested the use of a neutral case evaluator, a lawyer very well versed in construction cases, both with respect to the relevant facts to focus on as well as the state of the law as to these kinds of disputes.  To his credit, my counterpart counsel agreed to put any litigation on hold and we were both able to persuade our clients to try this approach.  There was one procedural snag:  the contractor had put a mechanic’s lien on the house and needed to file a complaint within 90 days to prefect the lien.  We agreed to allow the contractor to file the complaint in order to preserve his right to the lien, and then there would be a standstill agreement and a hold on the litigation to allow time to work with the case evaluator.

Read the rest of this entry »

Recently I presented on various aspects of civil collaborative practice at the Global Collaborative Law Council’s Symposium (Dallas Sept. 2009) and the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals Forum (Minneapolis Oct. 09).  One constant observation, in these two instances as well as others, is that people want to see and hear how the collaborative law approach can be used in actual civil disputes.  It’s one thing to teach about the idea and the process, but it becomes concrete when people can see how it works.

The next few blog posts are going to briefly summarize how the collaborative law processes can be utilized in resolving different civil disputes.  They draw from real cases and real situations.  Since they are all confidential settlement processes and agreements, I cannot reveal names or specific details.  What can be share is what was accomplished, how it worked, how long the process took to “get to yes” and the approximate legal costs.

Let’s look at a sexual harassment case in which the parties agree to utilize a collaborative dispute resolution approach.  In this case, both sides were represented by counsel; I represented the female employee; a large firm represented the non-profit employer.  Although the other lawyer wasn’t trained in collaborative law, both sides and counsel saw the immediate need and value of a collaborative approach, rather than the alternative of litigation.  Right away, the facts present two very good reasons to use a non-adversarial, confidential dispute resolution process.  Imagine the damage to reputation and funding sources if a case like this goes into a public litigation process, and the emotional trauma the employee will go through? 

It was helpful for the parties to separate the people involved and diffuse the workplace while the case was negotiated.  A collaborative approach allowed us to agree to have the employee work off site during this time.  This met an important need of the employer — relieving the tension and potential for polarization of the workplace – and a need of the employee to be protected from that tense environment.

One interest the employee had was that steps be taken so this kind of thing doesn’t happen to another.  That interest was addressed by a commitment by the employer to conduct regular sexual harassment prevention training for the entire organization. 

Another interest was some acknowledgement of what happened and a sincere expression of remorse by the employer.  That was accomplished in the settlement.  The employee needed another job.  The employer was willing – beyond the usual placement services – to use resources it had to help find subsequent employment for the employee.  That was part of the settlement discussion. 

The time it took from the initial letter from me to the employer’s counsel to resolution was about four months.  Settlement included the above elements and a monetary settlement amount.  Litigation would have likely taken 3 to 4 years.   It’s a bit speculative to estimate what the legal costs would have been had this been litigated, but it is fair to estimate that the legal fees for the employer were probably 20-25% of what they would have been in litigation. 

The collaborative approach taken by the parties and their counsel allowed for creative options for resolution, satisfied their interests, saved them time, money and collateral damage.  The advantages over an adversarial process like litigation or arbitration are more than evident.

Many types of disputes can be resolved with similar efficiency and results using the collaborative law approach.  Should you find yourself in a dispute, think about this comparison.

by Candice Cook & Michael Zeytoonian

When a layman hears the term, “mediation,” he or she generally conjures up in their mind someone who will serve as a third party adjudicator, like an arbitrator, to resolve a dispute.  The notion is that a mediator will ask questions of the disputing parties and help them come to an agreement.  This is only one type or style of mediation known as facilitative mediation.  For many years, it was the most common form of mediation.  In “The Promise of Mediation”, by Bush & Folger, however, another style was introduced:  transformative mediation.

The goal in a transformative mediation is two-fold.  Obviously, the first goal is to resolve the conflict, the main goal of any mediation.  But the second goal, a deeper goal, is to accomplish a real shift or change in the relationship between the disputants.  Transformative mediation earned its label because of its capability to transform the relationship between the parties.  Though they enter as opponents in their issues and position, they exit as allies joined by the solution.

Read the rest of this entry »

Like discovery, motion practice as we now know it, is not very sustainable either. Motion practice can be a useful tool used to streamline litigation and narrow the issues. Still, within the parameters of civil procedure, it can be a time consuming and costly part of litigation. Often, its purposes can be accomplished by adopting the practice of transparency that is inherent in the nature of Collaborative Practice.

Consider this alternative: Once an initial legal analysis is done, some very open and transparent exchanges of positions and legal arguments between the lawyers can and should take place. Assuming both lawyers assess the case well, they can agree to be open and transparent about their clients’ respective claims and legal positions. This can be helpful in crystallizing both the basis for and the focus of the negotiation and can move the parties to the negotiating table sooner.  Read the rest of this entry »

Another difference between Collaborative Practice (“CP”) and litigation is the way information is viewed and used.  Because CP is not adversarial or positional, lawyers do not have to worry about hiding or minimizing the importance of harmful information or highlighting or over-emphasizing favorable information as they would in litigation.  Remember, we are not in a winner vs. loser model in Collaborative Practice; we are in an interest-based or principled negotiation model (think Roger Fischer’s “Getting to Yes”), which will hopefully produce a win-win (think Stephen Covey’s “Seven Habits of Highly Effective People”) outcome. The more we all know about what we’re trying to do, the better it is. Read the rest of this entry »

Often I hear attorneys giving their clients an admonition or expressing reservations about using alternative dispute resolution processes like mediation or collaborative law that usually goes something like this: “I don’t think mediation is such a good idea because it’s just a tool used by the other lawyer to obtain free discovery.”

Let’s analyze that statement, looking at it with a reasonable person’s perspective and logic. And let’s test the assumptions inherent in that statement to see if it makes sense. Is the risk of “free discovery” really a serious concern?

Is there anything really problematic with giving the other side “free discovery”? And if “free” discovery is not desirable, then exactly what kind of discovery do we prefer? The opposite of “free” discovery would logically be discovery that is either “paid” for, or one that takes longer and requires the other side to work harder to get. So who is “paying” for the discovery? (Hint: In litigation, if the other side is paying, chances are very good that you are paying too.) Put differently, is the notion of “free discovery” really a misnomer? Read the rest of this entry »