Dispute Settlement Counsel

Posts Tagged ‘Efficient dispute resolution’

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 »

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 »

I got a call this week from a lawyer representing a client in a dispute involving environmental and breach of contract issues. He was following up on a recommendation to use me as a mediator in his case. His only question had to do with whether I had recent experience in environmental Superfund issues.

I advised him that my specialty area of study in law school was environmental law and received a certificate in environment law along with my J.D. from Pace Law School, known for its environmental studies program. Also, while I had litigated some major environmental cases earlier in my career, I hadn’t worked on any Superfund cases lately. The lawyer thanked me for my honesty and said he would consider that and get back to me.

The question about whether a mediator is experienced in a certain area of law triggered some thoughts. On the one hand, it’s a fair question and certainly having a mediator who has familiarity with the specific area of law involved is beneficial. But getting up to speed on the legal issues and the body of law involved in a dispute is not a major challenge for most mediators. Gathering and grasping the relevant information and the doing the legal analysis is important for a mediator. But the far more vital skill set and the true value that a good mediator brings to the table is his or her talent and ability as a neutral facilitator. That is, after all, why parties hire mediators and that should be the strongest factor and consideration.

Read the rest of this entry »