Dispute Settlement Counsel

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 »

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).

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 »

Most people involved in a dispute think the first step to resolving it is filing a complaint in court and commencing litigation.  Then, you basically turn the case over to your lawyers and wait to hear good news from them about the results.  Those unschooled in litigation think that very shortly after that, the case will settle, because “all cases settle”, and they will get a nice chunk of money without much time, cost or trauma.

Others think that within a time about as quick as you can pick up your remote, turn on one of many weekly series’ involving trials, and watch the show, your case will be tried, your lawyer will stand up and make some charismatic closing argument like the ones on TV, and your “slam dunk” case will be won.

Read the rest of this entry »