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>What is Your Goal? Winning or Fixing?</xTITLE>

What is Your Goal? Winning or Fixing?

by Michael A. Zeytoonian
September 2017

Dispute Settlement Counsel by Michael Zeytoonian.

Michael A.  Zeytoonian

What do you want?

It’s a pretty simple question, really.  It reminds me of what Noah (Ryan Gosling) repeatedly asked Allie (Rachel McAdams), his love interest in The Notebook.  She kept hemming and hawing as to how difficult her situation was, having to choose between two good men, and that there was no easy answer.  But he stayed laser focused on the central question:

What do you want?

 It’s one of the first questions a lawyer should be asking a client in an initial meeting or as part of a more thorough process assessment. What is the potential client’s goal?  Oddly, most lawyers in their initial meeting or consultation never ask this key question.

For people involved in a dispute, the sooner you answer this question with clarity, the better off you will be in the long run.  That clear answer is crucial to setting the course for the best way to approach your dispute.  It will also decide if you will reach your goal at all, and if you do, whether it will be as a direct and intended result of the dispute resolution process you choose, or as a lucky by-product of a process designed and intended to reach some other goal.  If the lawyer you are consulting with doesn’t ask you this question and get a really clear answer from you, run – don’t walk – and find another lawyer that asks you what you want.

If your goal is to win your dispute, this automatically also means that to achieve your goal, the other side must lose.  It is a zero-sum game.  Winning requires declaring war and taking sides.  It sets the lawyers in motion in a competition to see who can beat the other one every procedural and substantive step of the way, over the next two to five years.  Winning is a goal best served by a no compromise, take no prisoners, win at all costs approach.  Think Keanu Reeves in The Devil’s Advocate: “I win; I win!!” 

People who want to win usually also want the other side to lose.  Even if they don’t want the other side to lose, that is the result when one side wins.  This goal opens the door of the adversarial process. This is not the land of “everybody gets a trophy.” The law’s adversarial civil procedure is not designed to achieve a win-win result.  It is designed for two or more parties involved in a dispute to fight to determine who is right and who is wrong, who is liable for what happened, who must pay the other and how much.  This is the litigation landscape.  It is what we expect of litigators.   In the memorable words of Terrence Mann (James Earl Jones) in Field of Dreams when he was asked if he was going to write about what he saw on the baseball field and beyond it: “It’s what I do.”

Surgeons perform surgery.  Writers write.  Litigators litigate.  They want to try cases.  They want to win.  It’s what they do.  If you have some other expectation – if you want them to utilize circle process for the parties to talk respectfully with each other, or guide their clients through a structured collaborative negotiation – it is an unreasonable and misplaced expectation.  When I was a litigator, I wanted to try cases.  Settling or negotiating were neither my marching orders, nor my goal, nor my interest.  Litigators are not called to be problem solvers; they are fighters.  Their goal is to win.  If you hire one, that should be your goal too.

If your goal is fixing the problem, then the adversarial path directed toward winning is not likely to take you where you want to go and certainly not as quickly as you want to get there.   This is especially true if solving the problem calls for maintaining healthy relationships between the parties in the dispute, or restoring the situation to what it was before the dispute arose, or better yet, transforming the situation to something better.  Most of the time, the adversarial approach to winning destroys any chance of restoration or using the dispute as an opportunity to improve things.  It’s difficult if not impossible to preserve or repair relationships between the parties if the means they choose to resolve their dispute is to escalate it to a pitched battle.

There are people within the legal profession that are problem solvers.  They guide their clients through a well-designed, structured negotiation process.   They are called counselors at law, mediators, collaborative lawyers and settlement counsel.  Their job is not to fight and their goal is not to win at the expense of the other side or at any cost.  They are called to be problem solvers, facilitators and legal guides, walking alongside their clients and helping them reach their goals.  They help clients fix legal problems, not make them worse, and sometimes transform the situation into something better than it was before the dispute.

If you want to fix what needs to be repaired and your hope is to restore things to the good circumstances there existed before the dispute, or to improve them further, and you can view the dispute as an opportunity to do so, you need to tell your lawyer that is what you want.. You need to make sure the lawyers that you and the other party in the dispute hire to work with you are the right types of lawyers for achieving the results you want.  It might feel like you want a fighter, emotionally.  But what you need is to find lawyers who are trained and experienced as problem solvers.  It’s what they do.

What do you want?  It’s a simple question.  Responding to it correctly is the key to a successful outcome.  Skipping it leads you down a path you should never travel on, to a place you don’t want to go.


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