Dispute Settlement Counsel

Posts Tagged ‘Sovereignty of the Client’

Lately some of us lawyers who use Collaborative Law (“CL”) in civil disputes other than divorce cases have been brainstorming about the expanded use of CL in employment, business, probate, construction and other areas of law.  In the spirit of transparency that is an important element of CL, we’ve focused on why more people don’t use CL to resolve their business or employment or other civil disputes. 

We know that CL is an efficient and agile process and is ideal for many disputes, especially those in which preserving relationships is important.  We also know that it is not the best process for every dispute.  For some cases, mediation may be better; for others arbitration and for still others, litigation.  For many disputes, often a hybrid approach works best, which may utilize some of the principles and techniques of CL, but not all of the elements of the widely accepted CL process model. 

Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve been looking at baseball arbitration lately to consider including it in the dispute resolution services we offer at the Zeytoonian Center.   Upon further review, it should be added to our DR spectrum.  It is a great complement as an option for closure in some of the other processes, like IDR and civil Collaborative Law.

In fact, civil Collaborative Law’s response to the addition of baseball arbitration as a closure option to its process may soon echo the memorable, if a bit sappy, quote of Jerry Maguire:  “You complete me.”  But we’ll come back to that in the next blog post.

We’ve made it a point at the Zeytoonian Center to exclude arbitration from what we do, in contrast to most ADR providers for whom arbitration is a major offering.  Our reason for excluding arbitration is clear:  It’s not consistent with one of our core philosophies: the “sovereignty of the client”.  In all our processes and work, the clients make the ultimate decisions on how the dispute will be resolved.  Our clients have direct input into the process used, the pace of the process and in determining the options for resolution.  We don’t determine the resolution – our clients do.  We advise them, we are their advocates, guide them through efficient processes and help them reach good settlements.

Arbitration does not leave the determination, or for that matter the process, to the parties.  The arbitrator makes those decisions.  The only input the parties have in typical arbitration is to choose the arbitrator. Since most arbitration is binding, they don’t even have the chance to appeal the arbitrator’s decision if it is wrong on the facts or the law.  Parties in arbitration completely abdicate their sovereignty and control.  That is why it’s not included in what we do here.

We also don’t include arbitration because it has become too much like litigation in many cases.  It’s no longer streamlined and efficient.  It often includes discovery, motion practice, hearings, presenting evidence, witnesses, briefs or memoranda of law.  Arbitrations that stretch out over a year or more are not unheard of.  Some lawyers have observed that arbitration is pretty much like litigation except that the parties pick (and pay for) the judge and suggest that it should no longer be included in the ADR spectrum.  Like litigation, it’s not a sustainable process.

We believe the parties in the dispute should ultimately decide how it gets resolved.  They should select the right process, with our guidance and recommendations, and should make the final decisions about what the resolution will look like.  Dispute resolution needs to be efficient in time and cost, needs to preserve important relationships and not drain the resources and emotions of the parties.  The process should and can be agile and creative enough to come up with solutions that really fit the needs and meet the interests of the parties.

Read the rest of this entry »

Have you thought about having a primary care lawyer (PCL) among your team of trusted advisors, the way you have a primary care physician, or financial advisor or accountant?

Most of us have a primary care physician (PCP), a trusted medical advisor, the first person we turn to when we have a medical situation, illness or injury.  Before you decide what approach to take, what kind of medical specialist you’ll need to see, you begin by going to your PCP and asking him/her to assess your situation.  Your PCP has the advantage of knowing you well, knowing your medical history and as a result, he/she is in a better position to assess your situation and give you tailored advice.  You also have the extra security of knowing and trusting your PCP.

If you are a small business or a family business, a non-profit organization, a social enterprise or entrepreneurial business, why not have the same kind of trusted advisor in your legal world?  There is great value to having a lawyer that knows your business well, that understands the goals and interest of your organization, knows how you think and approaches situations in a preventive, proactive way.

Let’s take that analogy to medicine one step further?  If you had a back problem, would your first call be to the orthopedic surgeon to start preparing for surgery?  Of course not.  Orthopedic surgeons, like trial lawyers, are masters at their craft.  I have the utmost respect for mine.  But he is my last call; not my first one.  There’s a time and a place for surgery and that is only when you have tried every other less-invasive, less risky, less life-altering approach or when nothing else will work.  Only when those efforts fail do you turn to the surgeon as a last resort.  Litigation should be looked at through the same lens: only as a last resort, when the other less damaging, less risky, and less intrusive procedures have been tried first.  You can always turn to the courts or an arbitrator if your non-adversarial, solutions-based efforts don’t succeed, or when your primary care lawyer advises you that in your circumstances, you need to litigate.  But it’s very difficult and very ineffective to try to switch to a non-adversarial, solutions-based approach after you have been embroiled in litigation for a couple of years and spend thousands of dollars. Read the rest of this entry »

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 »

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 »