Dispute Settlement Counsel

Posts Tagged ‘Creative Solutions’

Two parties find themselves in a discrimination case and they do not want to litigate it; they want to resolve it out of court.  But clearly one of the interests – often a primary interest – is determining the appropriate measure of money damages to be paid to the person who was allegedly discriminated against.

If you went to court, this would be decided by a judge or jury after hearing testimony and considering documented evidence, after a year or two or more of litigation process.  If you chose arbitration, the arbitrator would make a binding and un-appealable decision after considering the applicable law and the relevant evidence and testimony presented. If you mediated the matter, a mediator would either be evaluative in his approach and offer information from cases with similar circumstances and help parties reach a number they feel is fair, or use a shuttle diplomacy style, going back and forth between the parties in separate rooms and in confidence.

The shuttle mediator will basically chisel away at the gap between the parties’ number until they reach a “yes” number.  Every so often he will forcefully or subtly remind the parties that if they don’t settle, they will incur the extra expenses that come with continuing the litigation and eventually trying the case.  He will also test the risk aversion levels of the parties by reminding them that juries are very unpredictable and uncertain and the parties really don’t how a jury might decide.  He will compare the certainty of a number they agree upon through mediation with the unknown of a potential runaway jury that could either come back with a defense verdict or award a huge amount of damages.  He will stress that that decision is then out of their control, and could then get appealed. Read the rest of this entry »

Does the way a dispute gets resolved – either through a negotiated out of court settlement process or through a verdict or finding of a court — impact the level of compliance with the terms of the resolution?  Put differently, are people more or less likely to carry out the terms of the final resolution when it is the result of a process like mediation or collaborative law or other non-adversarial processes?

One answer was recently provided in an article by Lorig Charkoudian in the Winter, 2010 issue of the Conflict Resolution Quarterly, addressing the issue of what happens after negotiated settlements.   We know from studies, literature and statistics that there is a high rate of successful resolution in mediated cases, just as there is a high rate of satisfaction with the mediation process.  But Charkoudian’s articles focuses on the rate of compliance with the terms of a negotiated agreement, compared with court resolved cases.

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 »

(Part two on Baseball Arbitration)

To respond to clients’ needs for a better fitting dispute resolution process than some of the established methods, we created a very fluid and flexible Integrated Dispute Resolution (IDR) process earlier this year.  IDR allows us to tailor the process to the specific circumstances of each dispute and integrate the right elements from other processes like case evaluation, the use of coaches, consultants and neutral experts, to give the parties what they need for the best resolution.

We hadn’t thoroughly addressed the need for closure in the IDR process or when the parties through their efforts in Collaborative Law or early mediation still can’t resolve the dispute completely.  Statistics show that parties only come up short about 10% of the time or less, when they use Collaborative Law (CL) or IDR.  Nonetheless, clients at the beginning of the process are still concerned about closure and what happens if they don’t resolve the matter.

CL requires limited representation by attorneys; if the case does not resolve through CL, the lawyers cannot continue to represent the parties in subsequent litigation.  In divorce or probate cases, this is not that much of a deterrent for parties as they typically don’t have long-standing relationships with their attorneys and the representation doesn’t require the lawyers to know their business well.  But in civil business and employment cases, where clients often have ongoing and trusting relationships with their attorneys, this limited representation requirement is a potential obstacle to using the CL process.  Having to teach a new attorney about the client’s business or workplace adds another layer of costs and calls on the client to replace his trusted counsel with someone new to handle the litigation.

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 »

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 »