Conflict Resolution

Advanced Problem-Solving Strategies

Read The Latest Post

The other day, I was trying to explain to another attorney why I’ve grown to dislike the term “litigation,” even though it’s the most commonly-accepted way of describing most of my law practice. I don’t have any objections to filing or defending lawsuits, and I’m also proud to call myself a trial lawyer for those unusual cases that finally make it to trial. But to me, “litigation” connotes a lot of activity in between that is not only wasteful, but actually counter-productive to the goal of resolving the dispute (I’m thinking of discovery disputes in particular, but the impulse to contest everything the other side is saying can arise in almost any procedural situation). This litigious mindset is counter-productive not […]

There is a measure on the March ballot in Los Angeles, Measure S, that would among other things force a two year moratorium on most new big real estate development projects in the city. I’m not going to discuss here the merits of this proposal, even though I have definite opinions on the topic. I’m only going to address how our political and legal processes frame decisions. In this case, instead of allowing a healthy public debate over the scale, density and location of new apartment construction, in which we could consider a range of ideas, and perhaps reach solutions that serve a number of competing interests, this ballot initiative now forces use to choose only whether we are for […]

Parties in conflict may face a choice among various processes for conflict resolution–litigation, arbitration, mediation, or some other formal or informal process. Attorneys are accustomed to presenting their clients with this array of options, and explaining the pros and cons of each. But the choice of process may turn out to be less important in many cases than the choice of approach to resolving the conflict. Parties choosing litigation, for example, are likely to enter that process with an adversarial mindset, filing every possible motion, and disputing every assertion made by the other side. This is the way many of us–including myself–were trained to litigate. But litigation can also be conducted with a more cooperative attitude, and nowadays courts tend […]

For those who still think that litigation must always be conducted in an adversarial manner–that litigants must oppose anything suggested by the other side, and bring every dispute before the court for resolution–consider that the courts are telling you otherwise. It’s not just that the courts routinely encourage settlement, and discourage trials; it’s also that they have changed the rules to compel efforts at negotiating rather than seeking judicial resolution of problems that occur during the course of a lawsuit. It’s almost as though the courts don’t believe in the process they are designed for, because they are requiring you to engage in a different process first. Meet and confer requirements have been around for a long time with respect […]

More evidence that the practice of law has changed in fundamental ways: At a panel presentation this week at the SCMA Employment Mediation Institute, Ann Kotlarski, who represents employers and Curt Surls, who represents employees, both agreed that they prefer to resolve employer-employee disputes without litigation if possible. Surls said that he always sends detailed demand letters setting forth the factual background his client has presented, as well as the legal basis for his client’s claims, before filing a complaint. These letters usually do not contain specific monetary demands, but  do include an invitation to mediate the dispute. Kotlarski also initiates attempts at early dispute resolution. She always calls the plaintiff’s attorney as soon as she gets a complaint or […]