Stay up to date on everything mediation!

Subscribe to our free newsletter,
"This Week in Mediation"

Sign Up Now

Already subscribed No subscription today
<xTITLE>Conversation with Heather Kulp About ADR Careers</xTITLE>

Conversation with Heather Kulp About ADR Careers

by Heather Scheiwe Kulp, John Lande
January 2016


Previous conversation here.

Awake readers will recall that Michael posted a series of posts by  Heather Kulp about giving advice to students about developing ADR careers and that I wrote a response to Heather to start a conversation.  (The links to Heather’s original posts are in my response.)  Back from winter break, here’s Heather’s response.


It’s an honor to be having this conversation with you.  As someone who has made smooth many previously untrod paths in this field, you are one of the reasons we can have this conversation on advising our students about ADR careers.  So, thank you.

Now, on to your points.

I think we actually agree more than may be apparent.

I, too, “worry that some people will get false hope and be disillusioned if and when they fail to get ADR jobs right out of law school.”  I think that’s why I want to identify any ways our field iscontributing to students’ disillusionment—either disillusionment that they will be able to secure a job or disillusionment that there are no jobs for them.

In the series, I choose to focus on the latter.  While I can imagine the former occurring, I’ve never heard anyone say, and none of my students report hearing, that ADR jobs are “common” or that it is easy to secure one.  To me, the primary barrier to excellent young professionals joining our field is not that they apply for jobs and are not hired for them (though this occurs), but that well-meaning folks (we?) give them incomplete or incorrect information about ADR careers that prompts them to give up ADR as a career path altogether.

I certainly don’t want anyone to be unnecessarily discouraged, so I want to make sure we identify ways the field might be contributing to that unnecessary discouragement.  The promulgation of half-truths was one contribution I thought we might explore.

You are absolutely right:  it is not easy to secure a job in ADR directly after law school.  I don’t want any student to be ignorant of that fact.  Yet, if we discouraged our students from pursuing hard things just because they might not succeed right away, I believe we’d be doing a disservice to them and to our field.

So, it seems to me we have some choices: 1) we can discourage students from entering the field right out of law school (or remain neutral about ADR as a career path), leaving most interested students to abandon ADR and a few students to apply without much guidance;  2) we can actively discuss with them the benefits and challenges of the field before they apply;  or 3) we can actively discuss benefits/challenges AND coach them in how they can increase their chances of securing those jobs.  John, it’s my impression from your deep engagement with your former students that #3 is the choice you made.  I attempt to model my teaching and student advising after your, Alyson Carrel’s, Bob Bordone’s, and others’ choice of #3.

Let me be clear here:  we cannot guarantee our students will get a job in this field.  We are not being responsible educators if we do not share with them the risks this path may present.  Yet, if they apply for these jobs despite our warnings and without our coaching—remember, they’re good at web searches! —they are more likely to be discouraged. I’m not sure that’s what we want.  Thus, I posit we also are not being fully responsible educators if we do not coach them in how they can improve their chances.

How can they improve their chances?  Certainly, they can take our courses.  Yes, networking will help. But this is (most often) not enough.  We need to be willing to give them feedback (three types in balance: appreciation, coaching, and evaluation) on their skills, help them practice in a variety of contexts (including representing clients—I’m with you on this one, John), and think through with them how they might add value in a specific industry (whether in a posted position or in a job they might create).  If, after they’ve tested out a variety of skill sets and incorporated our feedback, we do not find them ready to enter the ADR job market, I think it is our ethical obligation as ADR educators to let them know, and to let them know what they might do differently to improve their future chances.

One final reflection (and then I encourage your, and others’, response):  it is not fair to us, as educators, that we have to take a more active role in cultivating incoming ADR professionals than, say, a Contracts professor does for her field.  Yet, if we didn’t like innovative, challenging work, we might not be doing what we’re doing, right?


Heather Scheiwe Kulp is a lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School and a Clinical Instructor at the Harvard Negotiation & Mediation Clinical Program.

Prior to joining Harvard Law, Heather was a Skadden Fellow at Resolution Systems Institute/Center for Conflict Resolution in Chicago. While there, she designed court- and government-based conflict management systems for self-represented and low-income parties. She focused on foreclosure dispute resolution programs, but also conducted research and systems design in the areas of elder, child custody, and small claims mediation. Her conflict management consulting clients have included Physicians Computer Company, the State of Hawaii, the Uniform Law Commission, and the Utah Bar Association. Her work is published in scholarly and popular press, including the American Bar Association, the Los Angeles Times, the Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, and Wipf & Stock.

John Lande is the Isidor Loeb Professor Emeritus at the University of Missouri School of Law and former director of its LLM Program in Dispute Resolution.  He received his J.D. from Hastings College of Law and Ph.D in sociology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  He began mediating professionally in 1982 in California. He was a fellow at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School and the Director of the Mediation Program at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law School. His work focuses on various aspects of dispute systems design, including publications analyzing how lawyering and mediation practices transform each other, business lawyers’ and executives’ opinions about litigation and ADR, designing court-connected mediation programs, improving the quality of mediation practice, the “vanishing trial,” and planned early negotiation.   The International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution gave him its award for best professional article for Principles for Policymaking about Collaborative Law and Other ADR Processes, 22 Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 619 (2007). The ABA recently published his book, Lawyering with Planned Early Negotiation: How You Can Get Good Results for Clients and Make Money.  His website, where you can download his publications, is