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>Another Situation Calling For Collaborative Law</xTITLE>

Another Situation Calling For Collaborative Law

by Michael A. Zeytoonian
February 2011

From Michael Zeytoonian's Dispute Settlement Counsel Blog

Michael A.  Zeytoonian

Last week, while working essentially in a role of settlement counsel in a business transaction dispute, I came across another situation that highlighted the value of using Collaborative Law (“CL”). Unfortunately, this case was already in litigation, and has already crossed state lines via a change of venue motion which was granted.

But the good news is that the parties recognize that it would be in everyone’s interests to resolve this case early, rather than sink a lot of time and money into its litigation. There are a couple of legal issues which may either need a judge to ultimately decide them, or may at some appropriate point be handled by the parties with the help of a good mediator.

The question which has come up though, as it often does, is that of determining the right time to utilize the vehicle of mediation to help resolve disputes. Too early and the parties don’t have enough factual information to be able to assess the situation; the lawyers don’t have enough information to be able to wisely advise their clients in the mediated negotiations. Too late and the parties lose out on some of the primary benefits of mediation - saving money, saving time, avoiding the draining of human and emotional resources and damaging relationships.

Once the discovery process begins in a case, it tends to take on a life of its own. There is no mechanism in the litigation process to be able to stop when you have gathered all the relevant information you need and go into negotiation mode. It is also difficult for lawyers to make the strategic, mental and emotional shift mid-case from a gladiator fighting an adversarial win-lose war to negotiator looking for solutions that satisfy the interests of both parties, and facilitate enough of a win-win to reach resolution.

This is where CL comes into that middle ground between early mediation and protracted litigation. There are cases that aren’t right or not yet right for mediation and should not and don’t need to be litigated. CL gives the parties what they need – a streamlined structure and mechanisms for quick and efficient disclosure of relevant information – without also burdening them what they don’t want or need – a long, drawn out, expensive and damaging litigation process.

In Collaborative Law, the parties are required to immediately exchange all relevant information. That is mandated by the process agreement all parties sign at the beginning of the CL process. Unlike early mediation, the process provides a vehicle for the exchange of relevant information. It also provides the enforcement teeth: If parties don’t comply with the disclosure requirement, the process is terminated, the CL lawyers must withdraw as their representation is limited to the CL case, and the parties must then engage in litigation and retain new litigation counsel. This limited representation also solves the problem of lawyers having to make the shift from adversarial warrior to conflict resolution advocate and then back to hired gun. This is representation and advocacy without the war.

In the case I referred to earlier, CL would now give us the agile discovery process we need to get sufficient information to be able to counsel our client wisely at the negotiating table. And it would not call upon the lawyers to fill both the roles of fighting to win at all costs and negotiating to a solution that meets the parties’ interests and do some creative problem solving. And it would have done it without the several months spent drafting and filing pleadings, motion practice for a change of venue, changing states and courts, waiting for an initial court conference and getting to a point where the parties would like to mediate and reach resolution, but recognize that they need more information before they can adequately advise their clients with respect to what would be a good settlement.

These are just some of the reasons why CL is often the better equipped process to use to resolve many types of disputes.


Michael A. Zeytoonian is the Founding Member and Director of Dispute Resolution Counsel, LLC and is a lawyer, mediator and ombudsman. He is formerly a partner and now Of Counsel at Hutchings, Barsamian, Mandelcorn & Zeytoonian, LLP, in Wellesley Hills, MA. He specializes in employment law, business law, special education law, mediation, collaborative law and administrative law. He is admitted to practice in the state and federal district courts of Massachusetts and New York (Southern District) and the state of Connecticut. He has served as a mediator on the MWI panel in the district courts and on the BBA panel in the Boston Municipal Court.

He is a member and Massachusetts Bar Association and is chair of the MBA’s ADR committee and a member of the labor/employment section. He is a Past President (2006-2007) and member of the Massachusetts Collaborative Law Council, the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals and the New England Association for Conflict Resolution. He writes frequently on collaborative law and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and has trained lawyers and presented in collaborative law and ADR around the U.S., Canada and Ireland. He has lectured at Northeastern University School of Law, Suffolk University School of Law, New England Law Boston, UMASS School of Law and Roger Williams University School of Law.

He served as Assistant Attorney General in the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York, as a deputy overseeing litigation in the State Counsel Bureau in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties and working on consumer advocacy cases. Prior to his work at the Attorney General’s Office, he was an Assistant County Attorney in the Westchester County (NY) Law Department, in the litigation and family court bureaus. His litigation work at both the County Law Department and the Attorney General’s office included cases in employment; labor; state, county and local municipal matters; environmental law; construction, administrative and tort law, and the prosecution of child abuse and neglect cases. His undergraduate education was at Boston College and Iona College, where he received his Bachelor of Arts degree is history and education. He earned his J. D. from Pace University School of Law with a Certificate in Environmental Law in 1990.

Email Author
Author Website

Additional articles by Michael A. Zeytoonian