Dispute Settlement Counsel

Archive for the ‘Collaborative Processes’ Category

Armando Galarraga, Pitcher for the Detroit Tigers

Armando Galarraga will likely never again pitch a perfect game as he did on June 2, 2010.  The law of averages doesn’t favor it, and no one has ever done it.  So in getting what should have been the final called out of a perfect game wrong, umpire Jim Joyce took away something that no amount of money could ever correct.  And even though there was overwhelming support in the sports world for the Commissioner of Baseball to turn a lose-lose situation into a win–win, overturn the ruling on the field and reinstate the perfect game, most of us also recognized that this particular commissioner lacked the courage to make that decision.

So how could this situation, a problem that needed to be solved, get fixed in a way that restored order, justice and peace in the baseball world, when there was no legal mechanism for doing so?  When the law cannot give you the solution the circumstances need, it reverts back to the people involved and spirit of making things right to take the situation into their hands, go outside of the box and turn typical into transformative.

That is exactly how this problem was fixed, by the graciousness by Mr. Galarraga, the act of apology by Mr. Joyce, and an act of collective acceptance and reinstatement by the community, represented the next day by the players and Detroit Tigers fans at the following game.

The next time some macho person suggests that apologies are for wimps, remind them of the more than perfect, perfect game of June 2, 2010.  Tell them that the one and only way that the situation could be corrected was by two grown men choosing to do the opposite of ego, and rise above ineffective position-taking responses of who is right and who is wrong.

Read the rest of this entry »

Things change fast and laws sometimes lag the current reality.

I’ve been looking at the lawyer of tomorrow, which in society’s real time timetable means today’ lawyer.   Things change so quickly in today’s world that if you’re equipped to handle yesterday’s problems today, you may be “so five minutes ago” tomorrow.

The pace of today’s IT world is creating havoc for lawyers and lawmakers armed with tools and rules of engagement that just can’t keep up with today’s realities.  By the time a law is written, introduced, debated, passed and takes effect, it’s already outdated.  By the time the legal system’s civil procedure plays itself out, the problem presented to the courts to resolve is probably irrelevant to the parties that dropped it on the lawyers’ doorstep a few years ago.  Somewhere around the time the lawyers would be meandering through a year-long discovery process, drafting strategic motions and preparing for a trial that is highly unlikely happen (over 95% of cases filed with courts settle and never get to trial), today’s clients will have already either put a temporary band-aid on the problem or just walked away from it altogether.

Suggest to a young entrepreneur in his twenties the notion that the legal adversarial system will decide his dispute in about two to four years (if there’s no appeal), and the legal fees will run some five digit number and brace yourself for the look that roughly translates into something like this:  Three years?  Exactly what planet did you just arrive here from?  Or, in the language of the environmental, energy, green and organic communities, you will have just earned this undesirable label:  That is not a sustainable model.

Read the rest of this entry »

Photo credit: John Drysdale

A paradigm change is underway in the way legal services for resolving disputes are provided to clients, even though sometimes the movement feels so slow you can’t see or feel the change. The old traditional way of resolving disputes by suing, going to court and getting involved in years of expensive litigation is giving way to newer, more streamlined approaches designed to achieve faster, less expensive and more lasting resolution. The new approaches also minimize the bad by-products of contentious litigation: damage to relationships, reputations damage to business or family, and the draining of resources, energies and emotions.

Mediation has steadily become the vehicle of choice for parties who wish to avoid the warfare and adversarial process of litigation. Parties are no longer so willing to just hand over the decision making as well as control of the process to the lawyers, judges and juries. As the paradigm shift continues, the question will not be whether to use mediation and/or other non-adversarial method of dispute resolution like Collaborative Law, but rather how early in the process should the parties turn to these approaches.

But with change comes resistance, lack of understanding and lack of security, even if people know that what they have been doing isn’t working very well. The parties and lawyers know that the new playing fields of conflict resolution advocacy make sense and is logical, but change still is difficult.

In their new and enlightening book Switch, Chip and Dan Heath, who also authored Made to Stick, and who write a great column in Fast Company magazine, shed light on how to best effectuate difficult change. They note that even when you have persuaded “the Rider” (the practical thinker and thinking part of us), the more difficult task is to get “the Elephant” (our feelings and emotions) to accept the change. And the Elephant is always stronger than the Rider!

Read the rest of this entry »

Don’t you love it when your spouse or one of the kids responds to your statement of your view or your position with a “gotcha” something along these lines:  “Why don’t we just apply the stuff you do at work every day with your clients to this home and/or family situation?”  In other words, practice what you preach.

The “what I do for my clients”, in my case, is to work with them to resolve their legal disputes in ways that are non-adversarial and “interest-based”.   You can define “interest-based negotiation” as focusing on satisfying the interests of the parties, rather than focusing on the position each party takes, and spending your time determining who is right and who is wrong (or more often, who is more right than the other).

This minor disagreement below between a husband and wife provides a simple example of the difference between a positional argument and a principled negotiation. You can probably project the end result of each path.

A week or so ago, my wife and I were driving down to New York to my son’s engagement party in West Harrison, NY and to visit my wife’s brother and family in Somerville, NJ.   My daughter flew in for the weekend for the occasion from California, so it was an opportunity to spend time with her too.  West Harrison is about an hour and a half from Somerville.  We drove down Saturday morning from Massachusetts, planning to return home after the engagement party Sunday evening.

While we both shared the interests of spending time with both parts of our extended family, we had yet to determine how much time would be allocated to NY and how much to NJ.  And therein the disagreement arose.  There were basically four chunks of time:  Saturday afternoon, Saturday night, Sunday morning and Sunday afternoon.  We had agreement on Saturday afternoon (NJ) and Sunday afternoon (NY).   The middle chunks were at issue.

You can probably predict how the discussion might sound if it starts and stays positional.

Husband:  I want to spend Saturday night with the kids and Sunday morning a little father –son time with my son.  Why don’t we spend a few hours with your brother and the family, and then head back to NY for a late dinner and stay over in NY?

Wife:  I really want to spend more time with my brother, his wife and daughter.  We’ll see the kids at the engagement party Sunday afternoon.

Husband:  That doesn’t give us some quiet quality time with just the kids.  And you know if we stay over, it’ll be difficult to just leave NJ early in the morning and get back to NY for breakfast.

Then comes the critical moment; the choice made that divides the road traveled decisively.  Wife:  Dead silence.  Or worse than that:   “FINE!”  Experienced husbands are well aware of the depth of the definition of the word “FINE” in that context:  i.e. the opposite of fine. Read the rest of this entry »

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.

Read the rest of this entry »

Mediation and Collaborative Law are two methods that are moving steadily toward the forefront of dispute resolution.  With this heightened interest in early intervention and avoiding litigation, the question that gets increasingly asked is this: What is the difference between Collaborative Law and mediation?  There are several key differences.

First is the timing of their use.  While parties would greatly benefit by using mediation earlier, before they file a lawsuit or early on in the litigation, parties usually turn to mediation too late, after discovery is completed, and often just before the trial.  By then, the parties have already spent lots of time and money and have suffered the collateral damage of litigation.  They are more adversarial then they were at the outset, and often only turning to mediation to avoid the uncertainties of putting their fate in the hands of a jury or judge.  The costs have taken their toll, too much time has passed and their relationships have been damaged or destroyed.

Collaborative Law, on the other hand, is designed as early intervention, to be used instead of and before turning to litigation.  Its focus is only on resolution and settlement by intention.  Because of this, the parties will typically save money, save time, avoid the collateral damage of litigation and still keep the decision-making in their control.

Read the rest of this entry »

Whenever I suggest the use of an Ombuds person (also referred to as an “Ombuds” or an “Ombudsman”) as a key component in the business strategy of being proactive and taking steps to prevent disputes from arising, I get the question:  What is an ombuds? What does an Ombuds person do?

An ombuds is a neutral, independent and confidential resource person that a company or an organization hires to help it solve problems – small ones as well as big ones – early on, before they escalate into bigger problems or disputes.  An Ombuds is usually someone who is either trained and/or talented as a trusted counselor/intermediary/facilitator.   An Ombuds is a part of the process of identifying and solving the problem early on, and plays an important role in helping to solve it.  The Ombuds may not be the one that solves it, as much as being the person who puts the wheels of solution into motion.

The most important skill that the Ombuds needs to have is the talent of active and empathetic listening.  That is a talent that is highly underrated and often overlooked in the business or organizational world.  But it is critical, and is greatly appreciated by those who benefit from the efforts of a good listener.

Equally vital is the talent for having the insight and resourcefulness to identify the essence of the problem and know which way to direct people’s actions, and what resources to bring to bear to solve it.  You might call an Ombuds a problem solving architect or engineer, a person with a knack for dissecting the problem, seeing what needs to be done to solve it, and setting things in motion in a neutral way, all the while respecting the confidentiality of the situation. Read the rest of this entry »