Let’s cross-examine the case before we decide to file that lawsuit

Posted on January 22, 2016 by Michael Zeytoonian

I think it’s a good idea for people who find themselves in a dispute to do some cross-examining before they file a lawsuit. 

Sounds odd, right?  After all, based on what we know about litigation and how the legal process works from what we see on TV and in the movies, cross-examination is the high point of the lawsuit; it’s what everything builds up to, right?

There’s My Cousin Vinnie Gambini, (Joe Pesci), cross-examining the witness about how long it took him to cook his grits:  “Were those magic grits, like the beans Jack bought to grow his beanstalk?”

Or passionate Lt. Calley (Tom Cruise) cross-examining high ranking Colonel Jessup (Jack Nicholson):  “I want the truth!”  “You can’t handle the truth!”

Matthew McConaughey in A Time to Kill:  “Imagine the girl is white.”  Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird.  You can probably name ten more great TV scenes and riveting cross-examinations.

Real life court cases are not that way.  First, less than 4% of the cases that get filed in court ever get to trial.  Yes, you read that right.  It happens rarely, and when it does, it is are not the stuff Hollywood is made of.

So back to my opening suggestion:  Do some “cross-examining” of the case before deciding to file a lawsuit or hire a scorched earth litigator.  Let’s move the spotlight around from just one place where your supposed “smoking gun” evidence is.  Let’s examine behind the obvious and the positional statements, and peer into the corners of the other considerations about this case of ours.  Test our assumptions, our biases and our maybe overconfidence about our “slam-dunk” case.  Let’s ask a few more “why” questions before we start.

“I want to sue the other side,” you tell the lawyer you interview.

“Ok. Can I ask you why?  What do you hope to achieve by litigating?”

“I want my day in court.  I want the other side to suffer.  I was wronged here; I want that wrong fixed and to get some justice.”

Suppose the lawyer stopped the inquiry of the client here and said “OK, let’s get started.  We’re going to file a complaint, move things along and get you justice.  Let me get some of the facts and then we’ll start wearing down the defendants into submission.”

You feel good hearing that.  Pumped up.  Yeah, baby; that’s what I’m talking about.  You get your emotional high.  Unfortunately, that high you’re feeling is very short-lived.

But you really haven’t had your dispute and your situation cross-examined to truly know what is ahead or what your options are.  That was barely sufficient questioning to sign you up as a client.  But not nearly enough to set you and your case up right.  The lawyer didn’t even ask you what your desired goal was, or what you would consider to be a good outcome!

Now here’s what I’m talking about.  A reality check.  A cross-examination of the client about what she really wants, the interests underneath the position, her emotional bandwidth, pragmatic needs and level of risk aversion.

I’m reading another wonderful book by Dan and Chip Heath called Decisive.  It cautions us against “the four villains of decision making”: Narrow framing, confirmation bias, short-term emotion and overconfidence.  Essentially, the Heath brothers tell us with a great collection of story-telling and examples that we make poor decision because one or more of these factors is at play in our decision-making process, and explain how to avoid them.  Decisive, like their other books, Made to Stick and Switch, is a must read.

It is up to one’s lawyer, as a trusted advisor, especially if that lawyer is a person’s “Primary Care Lawyer (PCL)”, to cross-examine the client before deciding what course of action to take.  Here are some recommended inquiries for you as a client to hear your lawyer ask you, before you sign on with the lawyer and absolutely before you choose a dispute resolution process.  If your lawyer is not “cross examining” you with these before you start working together, think hard about getting a second opinion or interviewing more lawyers!

What is your goal here?  What would a good outcome for you look like?

      

What does getting your day in court mean to you?  What do you hope to get out of it?  

 

Have you considered other ways of accomplishing your goals besides litigating?

 

What is your time frame for when you need to have this dispute resolved?

 

What is the skeleton in your closet that I need to know now so I’m not blind-sided later? 

 

What is your level of risk aversion?  Put it this way: A jury could decide this case the other way and you’d get nothing after spending several years and several tens of thousands of dollars on this litigation.  How does that sit with you?

 

Do you want to control the outcome?  Or would you prefer to leave the decision-making about your case to a jury of people you don’t know?  Or an arbitrator who is probably very knowledgeable in the subject matter and applicable law in this case?

 

Can you negotiate or collaborate with the other side with some professional assistance from negotiation-style lawyers and/or a mediator?

 

Are there other parties and other considerations that we can include in our assessment of this dispute that will help us expand the pie of possible options for settlement?

How important is it to maintain a healthy (business, civic, organizational or family) relationship with the other party(ies)?

 

How important is confidentiality to the parties in this case?

 

This inquiry lays a solid foundation for going forward in a way that will achieve the best outcome.  This cross-examination, done before you start, is likely far more valuable than the Hollywood one that will almost certainly never happen.

 

Image Courtesy of: http://wordbypicture.com

The post Let’s cross-examine the case before we decide to file that lawsuit appeared first on Dispute Resolution Counsel.

Posted in court, cross-examining, lawsuit, Primary Care Law, Primary Dispute Resolution (PDR) | Comments Off

The “we don’t need to do that now” reason you need a Primary Care Lawyer.

Posted on January 6, 2016 by Michael Zeytoonian

We’ve been offering some stories about people, small businesses, and organizations who made some business and legal decisions before they had retained their PCL (primary care lawyer) to be part of their team of trusted advisors. Here are two common ones that I have heard several times:

A young woman starting up a small business wants to formalize the business as a business entity – either an LLC, an S Corporation or a C corporation. A real estate lawyer she knows had suggested that she call me to get some help. One of the first questions she asks is what the legal fees and costs would be to do this work. I give her a flat rate dollar range, with the caveat that it will vary depending on how simple or how complicated the situation will be. She sees that number as a lot of money. I tell her that number includes any filing fees or costs; for example, the filing fee for an LLC in Massachusetts is $500.00.

The filing fee costs surprise her too. She asks if that is a one shot fee or an annual fee. When I advise her that this is an annual fee, she is surprised. (She has now already received some legal counsel about things she didn’t know about before her call.) I tell her that this is why we need to have an initial meeting and take a good look at her business and other factors and determine what the best legal entity would be for her.

“But for a lower number than that fee, I can do this and take care of setting up and registering online,” she tells me.

“You can do that,” I respond, “but I think you’ll find that the value of our work is not so much helping you fill out and file documents, but the key questions, answers, analysis and advice that we will be offering you along the way. There’s more to this than just picking a form of entity and filing papers with the secretary of state.” She says she’ll get back to me soon.

With another young client formalizing a business, I ask: “Do you have an operating agreement yet or any sort of by-laws or rules that you will govern yourselves by.” He is contemplating entering into a partnership with a close friend of his and another party. He and his friend will be 50% owners and the other partner will be a 50% owner.

“We don’t have any of those, but we are close friends, we have known each other for many years and worked together in the past before. I’m pretty confident that we can work it out if something comes up,” the would-be client tells me.

“This might sound odd or counterintuitive to you, but actually, having an operating agreement or some by-laws done early in your business relationship is a good way to protect your close friendship,” I suggest to him. “It anticipates problems before they arise when you are both calm and on the same page, and allows you to discuss and decide how you’d handle them before your relationship gets strained by the business.”
“For instance, what if you three have to make an important business decision and your non-close friend partner wants to go one way and you and your friend want to go another way? How do you break that tie? If you have no rule on how to break it, what are you going to do?” I ask.

“Well, Ok, but we have other things to deal with right now. We’ll get to that question later. We’re cool on stuff like that now,” the potential client says.

Less than a year goes by and the three of them already have strong differences of opinion on some major decisions impacting the imminent future direction of the business. They can’t agree and decide that it’s best if one side buys out the other. But they did not do any operating agreement or by-laws, so there are no governing rules. They are stuck and one party is ready to go to court as the situation escalates. Their discussions are all over the place, and within a short time, distrust seeps in and both sides feel the need to lawyer up. The one lawyer that had been advising them is now also in a bind because he is technically the lawyer for the entity having helped them set up the LLC. “If this escalates and gets litigated,” he tells them, “I probably won’t be able to represent any of you as partners.”

Right about the same time that negotiations are going on and the three owners are trying to work out some sort of buy-sell agreement by the seat of their pants, but no longer trust each other, I get a call back from the young woman who had been referred to me by her real estate attorney friend about two before. She decided to go with an S corporation form but now wants to bring in another owner and maybe an investor but she hadn’t done any operating agreement yet and has questions about what to do next. “Can we meet and discuss what to do next? I see now that I need some advice beyond the forms, and maybe will take you up on that suggestion of having a primary care lawyer,” she says.

Better a little late than too late. She may have to change her business entity type, but it’s early enough to prevent some more major damage or legal fees.

It reminds me of one of my law colleague’s tagline for his firm:

“The worst time to hire a lawyer is when you need one.”

The post The “we don’t need to do that now” reason you need a Primary Care Lawyer. appeared first on Dispute Resolution Counsel.

Posted in new business, Preventive Law, primary care counselor, Primary Care Law, primary care lawyer | Comments Off

What if we extend these “Season’s Greetings” into how we resolve disputes?

Posted on December 31, 2015 by Michael Zeytoonian

Joy to the World.  Good tidings and light.  Shalom. The wonder and awe of a special birth of a child.  Peace on earth; good will toward men.  Heavenly peace.  Holy night.  Gloria, in excelsis Deo.  Star of Wonder; star of Light. A new year, a new beginning.  A throne of justice and righteousness.  Good cheer.  Rejoice.  Allah be praised.  Wisdom from on High.  Happy New Year.  Prince of Peace.  Wonderful Counselor.  (That’s my personal favorite as a lawyer.)

The holiday season is wonderful.  It brings out our best, our kindness, generosity of heart and spirit, our sense of wonder and amazement, our feeling of hopefulness and joy.  Lots of lights, singing, parties, celebrations and gift giving.  Troubles are laid to rest, if only for a while.  We stop arguing, stop stressing and stop trying to one up someone else.  We make resolutions to try to change for the better.

What if we didn’t slide back into business as usual? What if we just maintain the feeling of joy and the sense of wonder, and apply them to our day to day lives? … if we remind ourselves that each of us is sacred and every other person we interact with is also sacred, even when we disagree?

I read an article recently about some studies done that showed that people who experience the sense of awe frequently tend to be more generous and exhibit more ethical behavior.  I wonder about the connections between the sense of awe and wonder of this season and our feeling of being renewed and recharged, and at the same time rested, at peace and suddenly comfortable with quiet.  All is calm, all is bright…

And then it’s all gone.  The lights and gifts get packed up and the singing and merriment wind down.  Here in the northeast, the bleakness of another hard, cold winter begins to dominate the scene.  And it’s back to the grind, dreary cold days and long nights.

I’m going to wonder as I wander for a bit longer here… 

What if we didn’t slide back into business as usual?  What if we just maintain the feeling of joy and the sense of wonder, and apply them to our day to day lives?  What if we keep the sparkle in our eyes, and kept recognizing it in others?  If the warm and kind greetings continue to be exchanged, even between strangers?  What if we keep celebrating and keep looking at each other as brothers, sisters and neighbors, and exchanging warm smiles?  What if we roll down the car window and give a dollar to the street beggar that we are skeptical about the rest of the time?

What if we remember and remind ourselves that each of us is sacred and every other person we interact with is also sacred, every day?  If we looked at and treated each other with respect, all the time, even when we disagree?  One thing I’ve often appreciated among some of my legal colleagues is the practice of respectfully disagreeing.  How about if we take the time to silently acknowledge the divinity in the person that we were interfacing with, at every kind of exchange with each other?

How would that change the way we did business with each other?  How would that impact how we resolve our disputes with each other?  

How about if we all try it for a day or a week, follow up on this post and share with each other how we do with it?  You stop and look at the person who cut you off or is in your way in traffic as sacred.  The parents who are allowing their children to be noisier than we would like when we are out to dinner at a nice restaurant are sacred, as are their children.  The co-worker who disappointed you this week? Sacred.  Let’s take note of how it changes our response.  It won’t be easy, but it may just make a difference.

The post What if we extend these “Season’s Greetings” into how we resolve disputes? appeared first on Dispute Resolution Counsel.

Posted in holidays, Perspectives, season greetings | Comments Off

Tale #1: Using or Not Using Primary Care Lawyers

Posted on December 23, 2015 by Michael Zeytoonian

If they only had a Primary Care Lawyer before they …

Our last blog post discussed the value of having a Primary Care Lawyer (a “PCL”).  It makes sense having a lawyer you trust who knows you, your business, your hopes and aspirations, work and family situation, and who can help you navigate through the often tricky waters of workplace, community and family life. It gives small businesses and mission-based organizations some peace of mind.

One of the best ways to catch people’s imagination and attract their attention is to tell stories.  In his book Talk Like TED, author Carmine Gallo urges the use of personal stories, stories about other people and stories about brand success.  Stories capture both your emotional attention and your rational focus.

One memory from my visits to Ireland was their wonderful storytellers.  In Ireland, storytelling is a profession; no joke.  More than one Irishman came up to me while I was there and gave me business cards; under their names was the profession “Storyteller”.  At a legal conference I attended in Cork in 2008, two amazing storytellers were part of the formal program.

I’d like to tell you some stories over the next few blogs about situations where people either did or didn’t have their PCL. (Please start saying PCL over and over to yourself, as in the sentence “I really need to have a PCL.”)  Disclaimer:  These stories are based on real cases and real situations; names and situations are changed to preserve the confidentiality of the parties involved.

A home improvement contractor uses a “standard” contract provided by a related service organization, without reviewing the contract’s terms first with his PCL.  Sometimes, people opt to use “boilerplate” contracts, thinking this way:  Why pay a lawyer hourly legal fees to draft a contract when you can get that contract template online now or from other source, and just plug in the names, dates and other changing information? 

This contract contains an arbitration clause that requires that disputes go to arbitration using a certain organization and its administrative process and fees.  The arbitration company assigns the arbitrator and the parties are required to follow the commercial rules of the company and pay their fees. 

A dispute arises between contractor and homeowner.  Homeowner hires a litigation firm.  The litigator does what litigators do – takes four depositions and initiates discovery, even though this is a “fast track” arbitration.  They raise a claim that if successful could get them “treble damages and attorneys’ fees”, which probably fuels the client to pursue this course of action.  As a likely result, homeowner rejects a really reasonable settlement offer (more than enough to make him whole) which is made before depositions and arbitration hearings get started.  The contractor starts thinking his side should be taking depositions too so they take a couple of depositions.  There’s some discovery demand made.  Both sides retain an expert.  The so-called “fast track” arbitration requires four full days of hearings and because of schedules and cancellations due to many snowstorms over that winter, it stretches out over four months.  Everyone who was deposed is also called to testify as a witness at the arbitration hearing.    

The Arbitrator’s decision favors homeowner (sort of) and awards money damages, but they are considerably less than homeowner’s lawyers’ (two!) legal fees, which are not awarded.   Pyrrhic victory for homeowner.  The award is also far less than the settlement offer that was made before the proceedings started.  Empty victory.  Contractor gets a decision directing him to pay a fairly small amount to homeowner.  Pyrrhic victory.  But the company owner and his project manager were pulled out of work for most of the depositions and all of the four hearing dates and its legal fees far exceed the amount of the award.  Hollow victory.

If both sides had PCLs advising them early on, odds are they would have arrived at a settlement for about the same amount of money (less than $10,000).  Homeowner’s PCL would have suggested that homeowner use a neutral case evaluator to get an accurate read on the case’s strengths and weaknesses and the real value of the damages and then try to negotiate what he needed to have the house repaired to his satisfaction.  Contractor’s PCL would have been drafting contracts that would not have allowed for several options for dispute resolutions, not just arbitration through an agency.  He also may have suggested a neutral case evaluator and perhaps a short mediation, if needed to help the parties “Get to Yes”. 

Repairs would have been made six months sooner.  The time out of work for the contractor and his crew would have a half of day or prep and a half a day of mediation instead of seven full days of depositions, preparation for hearing and hearings.  Homeowner may have left happy enough to refer contractor to others, maybe with a $100 referral bonus coming back to homeowner for every referral.

Abraham Lincoln said: “Discourage litigation…the nominal winner is the real loser – in fees, expenses and waste of time.”  In this case above, both sides lost money, time and relationships, that could have been saved had they had PCLs.

The post Tale #1: Using or Not Using Primary Care Lawyers appeared first on Dispute Resolution Counsel.

Posted in pcl, Perspectives, primary care lawyer, storytelling | Comments Off

Dispute Resolution Counsel, LLC Receives 2015 Best of Wellesley Award

Posted on December 16, 2015 by adminDRC

Dispute Resolution Counsel, LLC has been selected for the 2015 Best of Wellesley Award in the category of (legal) consulting services by the Wellesley Award Program.  Michael Zeytoonian, director of Dispute Resolution Counsel, LLC (DRC) and a lawyer and mediator, was pleased to learn of the award in the town where the firm has been located since it began in 2008.  Michael is also Of Counsel and a former partner at Hutchings, Barsamian, Mandelcorn & Robinson LLP, which has also been located in Wellesley for nearly 20 years.

Each year, the Wellesley Award Program identifies companies that have achieved exceptional marketing success in their local community and business category. These are local companies that enhance the positive image of small business through service to their customers and their community.  These exceptional companies help make Wellesley a great place to live, work and play.  Various sources of information were gathered and analyzed to choose the winners in each category.

DRC is dedicated to providing proactive legal counsel and helping clients resolve their disputes by avoiding litigating and without going to court.  Zeytoonian, who had litigated cases for over 20 years, began the firm to be responsive to clients’ needs to resolve disputes more efficiently.  DRC’s mission is to provide other ways of resolving disputes that are less expensive, quicker and less damaging to the clients and their important business or personal relationships.  “I saw how inefficient litigation was, and recognized the “collateral damage” clients were suffering as a result of protracted litigation,” Zeytoonian said.  “So I looked for and trained in dispute resolution processes that offered them a better way, one in which their resources, energies and emotions would not be needlessly drained.”

“Processes like mediation, Collaborative Law and case evaluation are not adversarial; they are designed to identify the goals and needs of the clients and work by intention to achieve those goals,” Zeytoonian explains.  “They also keep control of the process, the decision-making and the outcomes in the hands of the clients, and allow clients and lawyers the flexibility needed for coming up with more creative options tailored to the clients and their specific dispute,” says Zeytoonian.

The Wellesley Award Program focuses on quality, not quantity.  Winners are determined based on the information gathered both internally by the Wellesley Award Program and data provided by third parties. Recognition is given to those companies that have shown the ability to use their best practices and implemented programs to generate competitive advantages and long term value.  The Wellesley Award Program was established to recognize the best of local businesses in the Wellesley community.  Its mission is to recognize the small business community’s contribution to the U.S. economy.

The post Dispute Resolution Counsel, LLC Receives 2015 Best of Wellesley Award appeared first on Dispute Resolution Counsel.

Posted in award, News-Articles, recognition, wellesley | Comments Off

Active exchange on mediation and ADR at Suffolk Law School

Posted on December 10, 2015 by Michael Zeytoonian

Three experienced ADR practitioners recently joined Suffolk University School of Law Professor Ericka Gray for panel presentation on mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) attended by second and third year Suffolk Law students.  The program is part of a series of presentations offered to the area law schools by the MBA’s ADR Committee.

Christine Yurgelun, Jeffrey Stern and Michael Zeytoonian offered their varied perspectives and experiences as ADR practitioners and engaged in a lively and extensive question-and-answer with Suffolk Law students on December 1 at the law school. Ms. Yurgelun offered her experiences as a longtime employee of the Massachusetts Trial Court system, particularly the Probate and Family Court, and the efforts of the courts to offer ADR – mediation and conciliation – to parties in those courts.  She spoke of the history of efforts by the court systems to incorporate ADR services into what the courts offer to disputing parties.

Jeffrey Stern, a longtime litigator and presently a mediator and arbitrator working for The Mediation Group in Brookline, Massachusetts, gave the law students several anecdotal examples of how ADR can be used, about the growth of mediation and about the increasing demand for early mediation.  Mr. Stern also discussed some of the highs and lows of court offered ADR programs, touching on the former multi-door courthouse programs offered by the trial courts many years ago.  Professor Gray also added to the panel’s scope by talking about her experiences over the years and the perspective of mediators who are not attorneys.  She and Mr. Yurgelun also spoke about the opportunities to get started and gain experience mediating in some of the community mediation programs around the state.

Michael Zeytoonian, a mediator and lawyer and principal at Dispute Resolution Counsel, LLC in Wellesley, Massachusetts, spoke about the need to match the right kind of dispute resolution process with each individual dispute. He touched upon the use of Collaborative Law, Case Evaluation, and the creation of hybrid dispute resolution processes designed to fit the circumstances and the situation presented by each unique dispute. Mr. Zeytoonian also pointed out the differences in strategy, demeanor, and objectives between a lawyer representing a party in litigation and a lawyer representing a party in mediation or Collaborative Law.  He urged law students to create new niche areas including those similar to settlement counsel or collaborative counsel that are more responsive to the demands and needs of clients.

The post Active exchange on mediation and ADR at Suffolk Law School appeared first on Dispute Resolution Counsel.

Posted in Collaborative Law, Counsel, Mediation, News-Articles, Suffolk Law School | Comments Off

Do you have your primary care lawyer?

Posted on November 29, 2015 by Michael Zeytoonian

Most people have a primary care physician.  But people and small businesses don’t often have a primary care lawyer.  This primary care lawyer that your closely held or family business or non-profit organization doesn’t have is probably the most important lawyer you need.

I often analogize between how we approach legal disputes and how we make medical decisions.  A vital starting point is to have a “primary care lawyer”, just as we have a primary care physician.

When you have a legal counselor on your team of trusted advisors, you are more likely to get good counsel early on about what to do when you are faced with a legal dispute, as well as about certain proactive things to do to avoid disputes.  This is where good, effective dispute resolution begins – with prevention and wise counsel.  One of my colleagues used this tagline for his law firm:

“The worst time to hire a lawyer is when you need one.”

Your primary care lawyer is probably not a litigator, just as most of our primary care physicians aren’t surgeons.  Surgeons are trained and passionate about operating on patients; that is what they do.  It is not their purpose to spend time on the patient’s health history and all the factors that go into making health decisions.  That is the realm of a doctor who, above all else, knows his patients, their histories, family lives, job stress levels, habits and propensities.  With that knowledge, the primary care physician is in a good position to quarterback his patients’ health care and help them make good, well-informed decisions.

I trust my primary care physician completely.  He has taken the time to know me, my habits and goals, and what I can handle well enough to give me good options.  He won’t be doing the procedure I need done.  He is invaluable because he will advise me and suggest the right next steps.  He may not have a surgeon’s gifted hands, but he is the most important doctor I have.

Likewise, when it comes to figuring out how to handle a dispute, you need a primary care lawyer to advise you and suggest the best options.  You need “dispute resolution counsel” to look at your unique circumstances, assess the situation, consider the kind of person you are, the speed at which the dispute needs to be resolved, your financial and emotional bandwidth, your level of risk aversion, your priorities, your goals, etc.  With that knowledge, he/she gives you a good recommendation on what to do, which process option to choose and tells you why.  If you skip this step and go to a litigator first, the “legal surgeon” will likely take you down the litigation road.  That is what he wants to do; it is what he believes in.  That is what he is trained for, passionate about and good at doing.

More often than not, “legal surgery” (litigation) is not the best procedure for the client’s situation.  There may be a need for litigation in the future, if less risky and less complicated options don’t achieve the desired results.  At the outset of the dispute, you want to choose the option that would best fit the situation and the circumstances of the parties involved in the dispute.

One major difference between resolving legal disputes and addressing medical issues should not be ignored.  When you opt for surgery and start the prep, nine times out of ten you end up having the surgery.  But when you opt for litigation and start the road to trial, nine times out of ten you will never have that trial.  The chances of that trial ever happening, despite the years of time, expense, collateral damage and emotional draining you have invested in it are less than 5%!  Some time very close to the start of the trial (imagine yourself right outside the operating room, about to be wheeled in), your litigation lawyer will discuss why you should consider some options to trial and 95% of the time, you will opt for another negotiation-based process.

You could have chosen that option much earlier on in your dispute, if you had first gotten some solid dispute resolution counsel from your primary care lawyer.  If only you had one at the beginning.

Like I said above, my primary care physician is my most important and valuable doctor.  Your primary care legal counselor should be your most important and valuable lawyer.  If you don’t have one, now is a good time to get one so that you can be proactive, well-advised and ready to make good, well-informed choices.

The post Do you have your primary care lawyer? appeared first on Dispute Resolution Counsel.

Posted in Preventive Law, primary care lawyer, primary care legal counselor | Comments Off

Zeytoonian presents on Collaborative Law in Washington, D.C.

Posted on October 27, 2015 by Michael Zeytoonian

Over 500 Collaborative lawyers, mental health professionals and financial advisors from all across the United States, Canada, and 21 nations gathered in Washington, D.C. for the 16th Annual Forum of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals (IACP) during the week of October 14-18, 2015 at the Renaissance Downtown Hotel.  The Forum is the largest annual gathering of Collaborative Professionals and boasts two days of full day training programs, followed by two days of training workshops, keynote speakers, and other highlights.  The IACP has over 5,000 members around the world, with practice groups in 21 countries and six continents (excluding only Antarctica).  Members this year came from as far as Australia, Hong Kong, Israel, Egypt, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, New Zealand and the Czech Republic, to name a few.

Michael Zeytoonian, lawyer, mediator and director of Dispute Resolution Counsel, LLC in Wellesley Hills and Westborough, Massachusetts, teamed up with Boston/North Shore-based Executive Coach Linda Cohan to present a workshop on Sunday, October 18.  Their workshop presented on Collaborative Law Pilot Projects with government agencies and non-profit organizations.  They gave particular attention to the two-year Pilot Project between the Massachusetts Collaborative Council (MCLC) and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD), which was recently completed in September 2014.

The workshop focused on how to identify potential project partner organizations, how to establish and set up the project and how to execute it.  The goal of these pilot projects is to offer Collaborative Law to the partnering agencies or organizations for use to resolve disputes that are filed with the agencies or that arise between members of the organizations.  Keynote or Plenary Speakers this year included Donna Hicks, author of the best-selling book Dignity: Its Essential Role in Resolving Conflict; Dacher Keltner, Director of the Social Interaction Lab at the Univ. of California at Berkeley and the author of Born to be Good; The Science of a Meaningful Life; and Barbara McAffee, author of Full Voice; The Art & Practice of Vocal Presence.

IACP members from across the United States, Canada, Israel, the Basque Country of Spain and the Netherlands attended the Pilot Project workshop and were charged with the task of going back to their countries, states and practice group and initiating new pilot projects within the next 12 months.  Linda Cohan discussed the role of the neutral coach/facilitator in these kinds of projects and the cases that are involved and the value of doing Pilot Projects.  Michael Zeytoonian identified what kinds of agencies or organizations would make good potential partners in these projects, and discussed some of the “lessons learned” from using Collaborative Law in workplace discrimination cases with the MCAD-MCLC Project for two years.  Cohan and Zeytoonian, along with Daniel Candee, a Collaborative professional from Lincoln, MA, shared anecdotal’s on some of the cases and situations that arose through the MCAD project and the challenges presented in the cases, ranging from the use of interpreters and neutral experts to the role of a party’s in-house counsel in Collaborative Law cases.

Three other Collaborative lawyers, Marshal Yoder of Fredericksburg, Virginia, Marc Sheridan of Mt. Kisco, New York, and Maura Sullivan of Canton, Massachusetts, joined in presenting demonstrations illustrating what the process of meeting with potential project partners would look like.  They also participated in the debriefing sessions and question and answer that followed the various parts of the workshop.  Sheridan, Yoder, and Sullivan are long-time leaders in their respective states in the training of lawyers and the promotion of the use of Collaborative Law in business, employment, organizational and family disputes.

The post Zeytoonian presents on Collaborative Law in Washington, D.C. appeared first on Dispute Resolution Counsel.

Posted in Collaborative Law, IACP, MCAD, mclc, News-Articles | Comments Off

Zeytoonian Presents on Business Collaborative Law at Annual MCLC Training

Posted on October 8, 2015 by Michael Zeytoonian

MCLC Trains more Collaborative Lawyers in New England

Since Collaborative Law was introduced in Massachusetts in 2000 and the Massachusetts Collaborative Law Council (MCLC) was formed, over 500 lawyers in Massachusetts have been trained in Collaborative Law (CL) and how to use it to resolve disputes without litigation and without going to court.

The MCLC added to the numbers of lawyers, mental health professionals and financial advisors training in CL when it held its annual Introductory Collaborative Law Training on October 1-3, 2015.  This year, the training was hosted by the McLane Middleton Law Firm in Woburn, MA, which graciously offered its beautiful offices and conferences rooms.

A panel of three lawyers and one neutral coach/facilitator presented a section of the training focusing on applying CL in business, employment, probate and non-divorce family disputes on the first day of the training on October 1.  Michael Zeytoonian, lawyer and mediator and Director of Dispute Resolution Counsel, LLC in Wellesley Hills, MA, joined attorneys Susan Klebanoff and Maura Sullivan of Canton, MA and Linda Cohan of Boston and Gloucester, a coach/facilitator, as the presenters for this segment of the training.  Participants this year were from several of the New England states.  Their panel also offered several examples of employment, discrimination, business breakup and family inheritance disputes where CL was used to resolve the matters in less time, with more efficiency and more creative outcomes than could be achieved through litigation.  They also discussed the role of the coach/facilitator in these kinds of business, employment and other disputes and the differences and similarities in the coach/facilitator’s role in these kinds of cases as opposed to Collaborative Divorce cases.

Attorneys Sullivan and Zeytoonian and coach/facilitator Cohan will also be presenting a training workshop later in October in Washington, D.C. as part of the 17th Annual Forum of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals (IACP).  The Washington D.C. workshop will focus on doing CL Pilot Projects with government agencies and non-profit organizations.  In 2014, the MCLC concluded a two year pilot project with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, using CL in discrimination cases.

The post Zeytoonian Presents on Business Collaborative Law at Annual MCLC Training appeared first on Dispute Resolution Counsel.

Posted in Collaborative Law, Massachusetts Collaborative Law Council, Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, News-Articles | Comments Off

Collaborative Law Growing in Tampa Bay: Training attracts 80 lawyers and professionals

Posted on October 2, 2015 by adminDRC

The Tampa Bay Rays may not be able to get a new baseball stadium any time soon, but the use of Collaborative Law is growing in the Tampa, Florida area.  Over 80 people – lawyers, financial planners and mental health professionals took part in an Introductory Collaborative Practice Training in Tampa, Florida on September 11 and 12, 2015.  The training was hosted by three lawyers’ groups – the Florida and the Tampa Bay Collaborative Practice Groups and Next Generation Divorce – and presented by the Lone Star Trainers out of Dallas, Texas.

Michael Zeytoonian, lawyer, mediator and director of Dispute Resolution Counsel, LLC, in Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts, was one of three panelists presenting a panel discussion on September 11 on the use of Collaborative Law (CL) in business, employment and probate disputes.  Zeytoonian was joined by two long-time colleagues, attorney Marc Sheridan of Mt Kisco, New York and attorney Sherrie Abney of Dallas, Texas.  Abney, Zeytoonian and Sheridan are nationally and internationally known for their leadership and experience in using Collaborative Law in disputes outside of Family Law.  Kerry Raleigh Tipton of the Tampa area was the moderator of the panel discussion; Guilene Theodore of Collaborative Conflict Resolution, PLLC, also in the Tampa area, was the lead organizer of the panel and the training program.

The Panel focused on the kinds of civil disputes are best for CL and what to look for in identifying good cases for its use – ongoing relationships between the parties, the needs for creative options for resolution and confidentiality.  In general, CL in business and employment matters is much faster, more efficient and flexible than litigation and less expensive.  The panel also talked about other areas and cases where there has been use of CL.  Abney spoke about CL’s use in medical error and malpractice disputes, Sheridan identified employment situations – discrimination and executive compensation matters in which CL worked well, and Zeytoonian offered examples from business partnership break-ups and disputes among adult family members over the use, upkeep and future plans for inherited vacation property.

Collaborative Law is practiced and has practice groups in over 20 countries today including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Israel and many European Union countries.  The Massachusetts Collaborative Law Council (MCLC – www.massclc.org) has been in existence since 2000 and has trained over 500 lawyers and professionals in CL.  Internationally, the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals (IACP – www.collaborative practice.com) has 21 member countries and over 5,000 members.  The IACP’s 16th Annual Forum will be held this year on October 16-18 in Washington, D.C.

The post Collaborative Law Growing in Tampa Bay: Training attracts 80 lawyers and professionals appeared first on Dispute Resolution Counsel.

Posted in Collaborative Law, News-Articles | Comments Off