Dispute Settlement Counsel

Posts Tagged ‘Seven compelling reasons for ADR’

Part 1 of 2 parts on PDR

In the language of the people, what we do at the Zeytoonian Center is work with people to resolve their disputes without going to court and without engaging in a process known as litigation.  We use different approaches like mediation, collaborative law, conciliation, case evaluation and our own Integrated Dispute Resolution (“IDR”) to help people solve their problem and we tailor that approach to the specific situation and circumstances of the people in that particular dispute.

In our materials and writings and presentations we make, you’ll hear three different acronyms thrown around:  “ADR”, “IDR” and a new one that we are going to start using now which will take the place of ADR, “PDR”.   Lay people get annoyed when lawyers talk in legal jargon, and rightly so, so I want to use these next two blog posts to explain what each one is, what each one means, and then ask you to join us in changing their meaning to reflect your interests and replace ADR with PDR.  We’ll explain what PDR is in the next blog.  We’ll save IDR for another blog post.

ADR stands for alternative dispute resolution.  ADR has included processes like mediation, arbitration, collaborative law, conciliation, etc.  Historically, lawyers have viewed ADR as the alternative to litigation.  As such, litigation has been the process of choice for lawyers.  In some instances, usually because it’s stated in the terms of a contract, businesses will use arbitration instead of the courts. Read the rest of this entry »

(last in this series of seven)

Last week, in discussing the value of confidentiality in dispute resolution, we noted that companies, organizations and individuals in disputes are not often motivated or focused on things like respect, civility, empathy, equity, fairness or just being gracious in our dealing with the other party to the dispute. In fact, some lawyers and some clients view the consideration of these notions as a sign of weakness and urge clients to just stick to the facts and the law.

The truth is, these elements go a long way toward creating a better environment for negotiation, establishing some trust, and ultimately reaching a more complete and lasting resolution.  Further, they are often at the core of those interests that are important to parties involved in sexual harassment, discrimination, medical error or family business disputes, along with the need for their views to be heard and considered, and the need to change a flawed workplace culture.   Read the rest of this entry »

Part VI. The Sovereignty of the Client

First, for those of you following this series of blog entries closely enough to notice that we skipped a topic – Confidentiality – good work in attentiveness. That’s a great skill for an ADR practitioner or a user to have.

Another is the insight to recognize the need to “call an audible” (a football reference), or step out of the pre-arranged order of things because the situation calls for it. To be adept at creating the type of “thinking outside the box” solutions that can be done in ADR processes is also a key dispute resolution skill. This blog exemplifies these traits.   Read the rest of this entry »

Part V.   Confidentiality

When you file a lawsuit in a court, the lawsuit and information related to it become public information.  Most courts today either utilize electronic filing or will be soon.  You may not think about it or realize it, but this means anyone can go online and find out about your dispute.

Most of the time, parties involved in a dispute would prefer that the fact that they are involved in a conflict as well as its details remain a private matter.  This is especially true of disputes that involve delicate or personal matters, like divorces, probate cases or business disputes between and within families.  But it is also important in cases involving “mission-based organizations” – churches, hospitals, schools and colleges, non-profits, social capitalism enterprises, foundations, green companies, etc. — for whom reputations and confidentiality are important.   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 »

Part III. Preserving Important Relationships February 7, 2009

How important is it to parties in a dispute to preserve relationships? There are many types of relationships that are central to a dispute: Between contractors and subcontractors, teachers and administrators, pastors and parishioners, doctors and patients, divorcing husbands and wives, family members of a family business, partners of a company, family members in a probate process, non-profit organizations and independent contractors they work with, builders and homeowners, to name some.

One of the factors that make a case a good candidate for using non-adversarial approaches to dispute resolution is the importance of preserving the business, organizational or family relationship and keeping it healthy. If the relationship must survive the dispute, if there will be ongoing dealings or contact between the disputing parties after the dispute is resolved, then ADR approaches like collaborative law, case evaluation and mediation have added value. Like it or not, adversarial positional processes like arbitration and litigation, at the very least, put a strain on relationships and often destroy them altogether. And when the parties go too deep into the litigation process before they turn to a mediator to assist in reaching a settlement, even if the mediation does result in a settlement, the relationships may have already been seriously damaged. The sooner the parties turn to an ADR process, the better the possibility of preserving these important and ongoing relationships.   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 »