Dispute Settlement Counsel

Posts Tagged ‘Efficient dispute resolution’

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 »

“We seek out lawyers that are practical in their approach, efficient in their time and billing and are trustworthy.”

“Nothing highlights a cost like an unexpected surprise.”

“At the end of the day, choosing and working with outside lawyers is all about relationships and trust.”

These were some of the insights offered by a panel of in-house counsel from several area corporations shared some of their insights on what they look for in hiring outside counsel. The panel was part of a Breakfast Series hosted by Massachusetts Lawyers’ Weekly held in Boston at the Omni Parker House yesterday (May 8 2009). Corporate counsel were invited to share their thoughts on marketing legal services, fees and what ultimately gets lawyers hired, or replaced.

In response to the economic downturn, but also indicative of a shifting ground, in-house counsel were clearly signaling that lawyers need to be more responsive to the changing landscape of the business community. These business voices also reflected a desire, in most situations, for lawyers to approach disputes as problem solvers. They also signaled that the old models and practices of runaway billable hours and inefficient dispute resolution are quickly becoming outdated. They noted that their companies seek out the value proposition lawyers can offer.    Read the rest of this entry »

Business owners, managers and entrepreneurs have confirmed some core beliefs of the Zeytoonian Center for Dispute Resolution. They are telling us that the most important element in resolving disputes is preserving important business relationships! They are also telling us that the notion of “winning at all costs” is among the least important considerations in dispute resolution. That is encouraging news and helps to confirm our beliefs about what is critical in dispute resolution and that non-adversarial processes are more responsive and better suited to meet the needs of those involved in disputes. Read the rest of this entry »

What do Abraham Lincoln, Mark McCormack and Jesus have in common?

They were all respected counselors in their time and pointed out the advantages resolving disputes quickly and efficiently.

Today, I happened to check back with a book I hadn’t read for years: The Terrible Truth About Lawyers, by Mark H. McCormack, a lawyer who is better known as the founder, CEO and Chairman of the International Management Group.  Written in 1987, it was given to me by a relative while I was in law school in 1988.  I read it eagerly then, and hadn’t gone back to it since.

In the interim, my legal career began prosecuting child abuse cases in Westchester County, NY, then litigating all kinds of cases in New York and Massachusetts for the better part of the next two decades. In the process, I crossed paths with processes like Collaborative Law, mediation and ombuds services, getting trained and gathering experience in each and developing an part of my practice in Preventive Law.  As I got on in counseling and representing clients, I’ve come to know that they are best served when we help them prevent disputes from ever arising.  When conflicts do arise, we provide value when we help them work through and resolve disputes effectively using methods best suited to their situations and interests and that are cost, time and resource efficient.  Read the rest of this entry »

Part IV. Ability to design solutions for the specific situation February 14, 2009

(Happy Valentine’s Day!)

Here’s where ADR really separates itself from the limitations of arbitration and litigation and flexes it’s “think outside the box” powers. When there are several interests to be satisfied in a dispute and it’s about more than money, that’s usually a good indicator that your dispute, your situation and set of circumstances needs the creativity and flexibility of ADR processes like collaborative law and mediation.

Courts are designed to really only do two things: 1. Order one party to pay another party money (monetary damages), and 2. order one party to either stop doing something or direct a party to allow the other party to do something (injunctive relief). In business disputes, the court’s ability to quickly intervene and either stop a party from taking an action or allow a party to continue an action without interference can be essential and that is something most ADR processes are not designed to do. But just about everything else, including money payments, can be addressed by ADR methods and as we have already written about, addressed more efficiently and without the collateral damage of litigation. And here’s the fun part: ADR can be very creative, innovative and situational.   Read the rest of this entry »

Suppose I told you that if you want to resolve your dispute by suing and going to trial, it could take you two, three and maybe more years to get a verdict? Explain this typical litigation timetable to young entrepreneurs, and they’ll think you’re from another planet. Their typical response: “That doesn’t work for us.”

Or you review your recent bill from your lawyer – $600 for a status conference at court. You ask what the lawyer talked about at a two hour status conference @ $300 an hr. Your lawyer explains that he arrived at court at 9 am, the judge began calling cases at 9:20, 30 minutes later your case was called, both lawyers indicated that they were present. Twenty minutes later the docket call was completed, all those with status conferences were then directed to another courtroom upstairs, 10 minutes later another call of those present for status conferences was called and 20 minutes later you got in to meet with the magistrate or law clerk for a 20 minute status conference. Maybe, because your lawyer felt bad about this and didn’t bill you for the other hour he would normally bill you for the spent traveling to and from the court. It wasn’t your lawyer’s fault, and he had to get paid for his time, but you got 20 minutes of value for your $600.   Read the rest of this entry »