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?
From John DeGroote's Settlement PerspectivesLast week we defined multi-step dispute resolution clauses and explored why a dispute resolution framework, negotiated before the contract is signed, can help businesses avoid litigation...
By John DeGrooteNeuroscience and Conflict Resolution Blog by Stephanie West Allen When a person affirms his or her deepest values, the process of conflict resolution can be easier, and often quicker. In fact,...
By Stephanie West AllenJohn Helie receives the ACR Mary Parker Follett award. The introduction discusses the history of the mediation field and the part that John Helie played. In his acceptance speech, John...
By John Helie
