Dispute Settlement Counsel

Archive for the ‘Social Enterprise and Sustainability’ Category

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  By the time a law is written, introduced, debated, passed and takes effect, it’s already outdated.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 »

Last week I attended a conference on Sustainability in Business, co-sponsored by the Boston College Leadership for Change program and the Sustainable Business Network of Greater Boston.  In a group discussion, I was asked this question:

“So what does the issue of sustainability have to do with lawyers and dispute resolution?

Good question.  We typically think of sustainability as it relates to protecting our environment, going green, conserving energy, avoiding pollution, etc.   One obvious intersection of dispute resolution and sustainability would be the conflicts that are inherent when you think about the different interests and stakeholders interacting on sustainability issues.  These matters would be better resolved by non-adversarial approaches that focus on satisfying interest, rather than fights between positions and rights.

But there’s another intersection.  Shouldn’t the consideration of sustainability also extend to all resources, not just the natural ones?  The concept can also be applied to the inefficient use of time and funds, the misuse of human resources, and the draining of energies and emotions.  These can have a devastating impact on the sustainability of a business, an organization or a way of doing things.

I give a lot of thought to the way we resolve disputes, and the efficiency of the methods and approaches we use.  The more common approaches, particularly litigation and court intervention as we know it today, clearly are not sustainable.

Litigation cost too much, takes too long, carelessly misuses our human resources and is often damaging to our psyches.  One reason our courts cannot handle their caseloads is because of budget cuts and staffing reductions.  But a bigger reason, completely overlooked, is that we are asking our court system to do more than it should be doing.

Court and litigation should be our last resort, only turned to when other attempts to resolve disputes have failed, not the starting point.  If we utilized our courts that way, they would be sustainable.  But our legal system is built on an adversarial model, in which court has become the first stop – for filing a complaint or a petition – rather than the last resort.

Over 98% of the case filed in courts settle and never get tried!  This fact begs the question:  If the chance that our case will get to trial is less than 2%, then why are we going to the court to decide the matter?

In the language of the green community, why would you spend all your time, money, resources, systemic development, education and emotions pursuing oil, coal and fossil fuels if you knew that at the end of the day, you were going to use solar or wind energy?

When it comes to resolving disputes, people spend thousands of dollars, years of time, hundreds of man hours, immeasurable human energy and emotion, ruin good relationship and damage reputations by litigating.  Only at the end of that process do they then half-heartedly turn to a method they should have utilized from the very beginning of their dispute.  And after all that waste and abuse, the process they just put themselves through is one they swear they will never go through again and the result is almost always one with which they are dissatisfied.

Sustainable models for resolving problems exist.  One such model is Integrated Dispute Resolution (IDR).

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 »

Why Collaborative Practice is a sustainable model for dispute resolution; Part I, Information Exchange

During a recent radio interview for the Business Beat on WICN FM (90.5 fm out of Worcester) host Steve D’Agostino asked if Collaborative Practice was here to stay or a passing fad like the Hula Hoop. It was a great question, the kind which you wish you had more time than a minute to answer. This blog gives me the opportunity to answer it more fully.

Collaborative Practice is here to stay. It will stand the test of time because it is, among other things, a sustainable model, a sort of “greening” of the process of resolving disputes. It will grow in use because it directly answers the questions and concerns like these that today’s clients have:

How can I resolve this dispute quickly?

What is the more efficient and cost-effective process?

How do I resolve this conflict and still maintain a healthy relationship with the party on the other side?

How do I keep this dispute private and confidential?

Is there a way I can have some say and control over the process?

How do we reach resolution without putting the final decisions in the hands of a judge, a jury or a non-appealable arbitrator?

Where can we go to come up with creative solutions that are tailored to our situation?   Read the rest of this entry »

What exactly is social enterprise? We read about social capitalist businesses, green companies, and sustainable business practices. One of my favorite magazines, Fast Company, frequently awards top social enterprise businesses and offers stories about how these companies serve some greater purpose beyond making a profit. Recalling Paul Newman’s compelling question in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, I wanted to find out more about exactly “Who are these guys?” It seems there is a natural synergy between resolving disputes using non-adversarial methods and the core values of social enterprise, but I wanted to explore how this synergy could be acted upon in productive ways. 

So recently (3/27/09), I attended the Eleventh Annual Symposium on Spirituality in Business, sponsored by Sustainable Business Network of Boston at Babson College in Wellesley. My purpose was to learn more about the notions of sustainable business and get to know and listen to people who owned and worked with social enterprise businesses. Among the businesses attending was the day’s honoree, Equal Exchange, based in West Bridgewater, MA., a sustainable business built on a model of taking care of employees to the extent that the employees genuinely own the company and make the decisions together.   Read the rest of this entry »