I pride myself on settling cases. Most of the time, somewhere near the beginning of the mediation hearing, I explain to the parties that what we’re after is a “compromise”, not a win. Most of the time, they’re satisfied with the outcome: it ends the lawsuit and usually resembles what is legally “right” or at least justifiable financially. And yet, when you “google” the word “settlements” you get a lot of images of uninvited housing developments in lands whose ownership is still under dispute. Does “settlement” also mean something like “staking out your claim”? Or consider the “settling” that takes place in so many homes in Southern California. That one causes cracks in our ceilings and walls after earthquakes have caused our foundation to tremble over so many years. Is that a good thing? What about “debt settlement”? That one gives relief to the debtor, so probably is analogous to the kind of settling I do for parties before me. And consider “settling down” as in making peace with your current situation. It appears to be subject to one’s interpretation in ways that make my job that much more challenging. Do I dare to urge the parties to “settle” their lawsuit or is it useful to consider other terminology in light of the various meanings attached to the word?
Goals, perceptions, projected defences, aspirations, and intentions tend to hijack thought processes when there is a lack of discernment or capacity/motivation to reason out the situation objectively. J.Krishnamurthy calls this...
By Uma RamanathanThis article first appeared on the Herbert Smith Freehills Arbitration Notes, here. International arbitration continues to play an increasingly important role in Australia. In this note we canvass some of...
By Guillermo García-Perrote, Leon ChungThe added expense of living in two separate households may be obvious in a divorce case, but have you also budgeted for the cost of hiring a divorce lawyer to go...
By Cris Pastore
