Dispute Settlement Counsel

Archive for the ‘Financial Considerations of Dispute Resolution’ Category

You find yourself in a dispute, let’s say it’s a sexual harassment case and you are the employer and alleged wrongdoer. You don’t want to litigate this matter for lots of reasons: it’s too expensive; it would take too long; it would draw too many of your employees, including you, away from the business; it would give the company bad publicity; it would polarize your employees and pit them either for or against the alleged victim, and it would be emotionally draining for those involved. Add to that the facts that the alleged victim is a valued employee you don’t want to lose and you want to be seen in the workplace as an enlightened employer and a company people want to work for because they are treated well.

All good reasons why you don’t want to litigate this matter. Add to those one more: If you litigate, the process, the pace and timing and the outcome is out of your control and someone else – a government agency, a judge, an arbitrator or a jury – will decide the case.

You have heard about alternative dispute resolutions methods like mediation or collaborative law (CL), both of which offer you many of the advantages that litigation cannot offer you. But the one thing those methods don’t give you is closure: If the matter doesn’t get resolved by using CL or mediation, then you have to start over and go to court or an arbitrator, draining you of more time and more money. You want the control over the process and outcome and you want the privacy and confidentiality. You want a less expensive and more streamlined efficient process, one that achieves resolution in a few months or less, not a few years. 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 »

It’s great that there are now two new shows which focus on mediation as an alternative to the court process.  One is Fairly Legal (Thursday at 10 pm EST on USA Network); the other is Harry’s Law (Mondays at 10 pm EST on NBC).

Fairly Legal’s premise is the use of mediation to resolve disputes rather than going to court and fighting through a litigation process.  The lead character, Kate Reed, is a lawyer who walked away from the litigation side of the profession to become a mediator.

Episodes I’ve watched have portrayed employment, intellectual property, divorce and criminal cases resolved by the creative intervention of the mediator.  At the end of the February 24 episode, Kate gave a presentation to a room full of lawyers on the advantages of mediation over court-based litigation, making the case we have been making -  it saves time, saves money, saves relationships, can be more creative in coming up with good solutions and is confidential.

Harry’s Law is a law show with a twist.  The lead lawyer, played by Kathy Bates, runs her law practice out of a shoe store.  This resonates with me because I can envision combining a dispute resolution practice with a breakfast and lunch restaurant – my ultimate goal.

The February 21 episode was on point for two reasons:  It presented two cases, one showing in a compelling way how mediation can be used effectively to resolve a neighborhood gang dispute and the other showing in an equally compelling way how a court-determined verdict fell so short of solving the problem in an employment dispute.

Read the rest of this entry »

Last week, while working essentially in a role of settlement counsel in a business transaction dispute, I came across another situation that highlighted the value of using Collaborative Law (“CL”).  Unfortunately, this case was already in litigation, and has already crossed state lines via a change of venue motion which was granted.

But the good news is that the parties recognize that it would be in everyone’s interests to resolve this case early, rather than sink a lot of time and money into its litigation.  There are a couple of legal issues which may either need a judge to ultimately decide them, or may at some appropriate point be handled by the parties with the help of a good mediator.

The question which has come up though, as it often does, is that of determining the right time to utilize the vehicle of mediation to help resolve disputes.  Too early and the parties don’t have enough factual information to be able to assess the situation; the lawyers don’t have enough information to be able to wisely advise their clients in the mediated negotiations.  Too late and the parties lose out on some of the primary benefits of mediation -  saving money, saving time, avoiding the draining of human and emotional resources and damaging relationships.

Once the discovery process begins in a case, it tends to take on a life of its own.  There is no mechanism in the litigation process to be able to stop when you have gathered all the relevant information you need and go into negotiation mode.  It is also difficult for lawyers to make the strategic, mental and emotional shift mid-case from a gladiator fighting an adversarial win-lose war to negotiator looking for solutions that satisfy the interests of both parties, and facilitate enough of a win-win to reach resolution.

Read the rest of this entry »

(second in a series and dialogue on the workplace)
Workplace bullying and harassment are emerging issues to be addressed by employers.  Add the potentially larger problem of increased stress, decreased morale and diminished productivity of those employees who remain after layoffs, who are expected to carry the same load with less people, less experiential knowledge and less resources.  Factor in a still sluggish economy and high unemployment, and we have a workplace perfect storm and a cresting wave of workplace discontent.

I think employers need to be proactive and act ahead of the law. Ignoring this rising crisis may result in a layer of liability and non-compliance resulting from new laws.  Their efforts to run a business may be stymied by a mobilized work force or they may have to close down because they failed to navigate this storm effectively.   This storm will stay in the workplace and be also strengthened by the changes in the workplace brought by information technology and Generation Y.  This is not your father’s work environment anymore.

Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve been looking at baseball arbitration lately to consider including it in the dispute resolution services we offer at the Zeytoonian Center.   Upon further review, it should be added to our DR spectrum.  It is a great complement as an option for closure in some of the other processes, like IDR and civil Collaborative Law.

In fact, civil Collaborative Law’s response to the addition of baseball arbitration as a closure option to its process may soon echo the memorable, if a bit sappy, quote of Jerry Maguire:  “You complete me.”  But we’ll come back to that in the next blog post.

We’ve made it a point at the Zeytoonian Center to exclude arbitration from what we do, in contrast to most ADR providers for whom arbitration is a major offering.  Our reason for excluding arbitration is clear:  It’s not consistent with one of our core philosophies: the “sovereignty of the client”.  In all our processes and work, the clients make the ultimate decisions on how the dispute will be resolved.  Our clients have direct input into the process used, the pace of the process and in determining the options for resolution.  We don’t determine the resolution – our clients do.  We advise them, we are their advocates, guide them through efficient processes and help them reach good settlements.

Arbitration does not leave the determination, or for that matter the process, to the parties.  The arbitrator makes those decisions.  The only input the parties have in typical arbitration is to choose the arbitrator. Since most arbitration is binding, they don’t even have the chance to appeal the arbitrator’s decision if it is wrong on the facts or the law.  Parties in arbitration completely abdicate their sovereignty and control.  That is why it’s not included in what we do here.

We also don’t include arbitration because it has become too much like litigation in many cases.  It’s no longer streamlined and efficient.  It often includes discovery, motion practice, hearings, presenting evidence, witnesses, briefs or memoranda of law.  Arbitrations that stretch out over a year or more are not unheard of.  Some lawyers have observed that arbitration is pretty much like litigation except that the parties pick (and pay for) the judge and suggest that it should no longer be included in the ADR spectrum.  Like litigation, it’s not a sustainable process.

We believe the parties in the dispute should ultimately decide how it gets resolved.  They should select the right process, with our guidance and recommendations, and should make the final decisions about what the resolution will look like.  Dispute resolution needs to be efficient in time and cost, needs to preserve important relationships and not drain the resources and emotions of the parties.  The process should and can be agile and creative enough to come up with solutions that really fit the needs and meet the interests of the parties.

Read the rest of this entry »

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 »