Dispute Settlement Counsel

Posts Tagged ‘Efficient dispute resolution’

I’m often asked how case evaluation is used to resolve a dispute.  The best way to explain is to tell about a case that was resolved using a case evaluator/mediator.

One important prerequisite is that the parties to the dispute – and their lawyers — have to want to resolve the matter quickly and approach it like a problem to solve, not a fight over who is right.  This is sometimes driven by the nature of the case, or by the ability of both parties to see that their interests are not best met by prolonged, expensive and cumbersome litigation.

In this homeowner-contractor dispute, both parties needed to get the issues about payment and continued or discontinued work resolved quickly.  The homeowners’ family life was being disrupted the longer the dispute remained unresolved and the contractor’s ability to earn more money and deploy his resources effectively hung in the balance.   Both lawyers realized that neither client would benefit by the costs and length of litigation, and the matter was not a clear cut case in which one side was clearly right.

I suggested the use of a neutral case evaluator, a lawyer very well versed in construction cases, both with respect to the relevant facts to focus on as well as the state of the law as to these kinds of disputes.  To his credit, my counterpart counsel agreed to put any litigation on hold and we were both able to persuade our clients to try this approach.  There was one procedural snag:  the contractor had put a mechanic’s lien on the house and needed to file a complaint within 90 days to prefect the lien.  We agreed to allow the contractor to file the complaint in order to preserve his right to the lien, and then there would be a standstill agreement and a hold on the litigation to allow time to work with the case evaluator.

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  By the time a law is written, introduced, debated, passed and takes effect, it’s already outdated.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

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 is frequently used to resolve disputes of all kinds – business, employment, negligence, medical error, probate, divorces – and the trend toward mediation is growing. Even litigators will tell you that they often end up calling in a mediator before going to trial to get the case resolved. It’s often a better alternative than going to trial, incurring additional costs for the client and risking an uncertain result that is out of the control of the parties and lawyers. Statistically, 98% of the cases filed with the courts settle, and many of those utilize mediation to settle it.

The critical distinction here is when the mediation occurs. The problem with utilizing mediation is not the process of mediation, but rather that the parties wait too long before they turn to the mediator. 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 »

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 »