Dispute Settlement Counsel

Posts Tagged ‘Sustainability’

(second in a series)

Last blog post (Why aren’t more people using CL?), we noted that people in disputes often overlook a very important consideration:  how information is exchanged.  It is one of three critical questions when it comes to resolving disputes:

1. Are the parties willing to focus on resolution by intention and design and not go to court?
2. What is the most efficient process (the best fit) for your particular dispute situation?

So how do parties handle the exchange of relevant information?  Old school dispute resolution, via litigation, was the “hide the ball” approach, by which parties try to hide or minimize that information that hurts your position and hope the other side doesn’t find it.  At the same time, parties often exaggerate and shine the spotlight early and often on that information that supports their positions. Read the rest of this entry »

Part II (Part I on June 18, 2011)

In our last blog, we began the discussion of what ADR is and why people are steadily asking their lawyers to use processes like mediation and collaborative law.  We talked about arbitration becoming more and more like litigation.  We discussed how the economy, the influence of information technology and a better informed public all contribute to a shift away from the long, expensive and cumbersome litigation process to more sustainable models of dispute resolution.

This shift is forcing lawyers to change the way they serve their clients.  It is also pushing more lawyers toward training in mediation and collaborative law and adding these methods to their toolbox.  Clients, better informed and more empowered, are seeking out these processes that were the “alternatives” to litigation.  More and more, mediation, collaborative law and conciliation are the first choices and the “primary” ways to resolving conflict, while arbitration and court-based litigation are gradually becoming the alternatives that parties default to if they cannot resolve their dispute through the non-adversarial approaches.

In Australia, the legal community has already changed the references to reflect the growing demand for these more efficient methods.  Australia now uses the phrase “Primary Dispute Resolution”, or “PDR” to refer to mediation, collaborative law and conciliation, and uses the older term ADR to refer to either litigation or arbitration or the entire spectrum of dispute resolution approaches.  This same change has been encouraged in other places around the world. 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 »

In our last blog post, I suggested the good sense idea of having a primary care lawyer in one’s team of trusted advisors, as one would have a primary care physician, an accountant, a business or personal coach, and for some, a financial advisor.  There are, as we discussed, many advantages to having trusted legal counsel on board, someone who knows your business and family circumstances well, knows your priorities and goals, your disposition and who can give you good preventive and proactive advice, before you decide which legal path to travel.

Some readers pointed out that while that would be practical and helpful, unlike a primary care physician, which is most often covered and included in one’s medical benefits and health insurance, legal counsel is not usually included among the benefits offered by companies.  It’s an out of pocket cost to the user/client, one that many just can’t afford to include in their budgets.

That good point got me to thinking two thoughts:

1.  Yes, it is a costly service to add trusted legal counsel to a person or family or small business budget, but in the long run, it will most likely save hundreds, if not thousands of dollars.  It’s similar to paying a little more for organic food or fresh produce from small family farms as part of our preventive health approach to our bodies.  My grandfather, one of the wisest men I ever knew, used to teach us that there were two places you should never cut costs:  Food and shoes.

2.  Maybe companies and employers should consider offering this benefit to employees, something small that the company may not need to buy insurance to cover.  They should do it not only because it’s a good benefit to offer to their employees in trying to do right by them, but also because it’s probably going to be a cost savings to the company, for the very same, preventive, proactive reasons as it saves a person money.  When people utilize preventive law and avoid litigation, they not only save money, but also save time, time that would be taken off from work to attend to the demands of litigation or bigger legal problems. People also avoid the stress and emotional drain, the sense of being worn down by a legal dispute, especially one that goes into litigation.  These factors directly impact a person’s mental and emotional well-being and one’s productivity, energy level, focus and concentration in the workplace.  The combined cost of time off and unproductive, distracted work from an employee who is preoccupied and consumed by litigation is significant and detrimental to the workplace.

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 »

Last week I attended a conference on Sustainability in Business, co-sponsored by the Boston College Leadership for Change program and the Sustainable Business Network of Greater Boston.  In a group discussion, I was asked this question:

“So what does the issue of sustainability have to do with lawyers and dispute resolution?

Good question.  We typically think of sustainability as it relates to protecting our environment, going green, conserving energy, avoiding pollution, etc.   One obvious intersection of dispute resolution and sustainability would be the conflicts that are inherent when you think about the different interests and stakeholders interacting on sustainability issues.  These matters would be better resolved by non-adversarial approaches that focus on satisfying interest, rather than fights between positions and rights.

But there’s another intersection.  Shouldn’t the consideration of sustainability also extend to all resources, not just the natural ones?  The concept can also be applied to the inefficient use of time and funds, the misuse of human resources, and the draining of energies and emotions.  These can have a devastating impact on the sustainability of a business, an organization or a way of doing things.

I give a lot of thought to the way we resolve disputes, and the efficiency of the methods and approaches we use.  The more common approaches, particularly litigation and court intervention as we know it today, clearly are not sustainable.

Litigation cost too much, takes too long, carelessly misuses our human resources and is often damaging to our psyches.  One reason our courts cannot handle their caseloads is because of budget cuts and staffing reductions.  But a bigger reason, completely overlooked, is that we are asking our court system to do more than it should be doing.

Court and litigation should be our last resort, only turned to when other attempts to resolve disputes have failed, not the starting point.  If we utilized our courts that way, they would be sustainable.  But our legal system is built on an adversarial model, in which court has become the first stop – for filing a complaint or a petition – rather than the last resort.

Over 98% of the case filed in courts settle and never get tried!  This fact begs the question:  If the chance that our case will get to trial is less than 2%, then why are we going to the court to decide the matter?

In the language of the green community, why would you spend all your time, money, resources, systemic development, education and emotions pursuing oil, coal and fossil fuels if you knew that at the end of the day, you were going to use solar or wind energy?

When it comes to resolving disputes, people spend thousands of dollars, years of time, hundreds of man hours, immeasurable human energy and emotion, ruin good relationship and damage reputations by litigating.  Only at the end of that process do they then half-heartedly turn to a method they should have utilized from the very beginning of their dispute.  And after all that waste and abuse, the process they just put themselves through is one they swear they will never go through again and the result is almost always one with which they are dissatisfied.

Sustainable models for resolving problems exist.  One such model is Integrated Dispute Resolution (IDR).

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 »