Stage 4 non binding dispute resolution
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 33

Stage 4: Non-Binding Dispute Resolution PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 62 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Stage 4: Non-Binding Dispute Resolution. Definitions. WHAT Assistance of a Third Party to Reach a Mutually Agreeable Solution Mediation, Conciliation, Advisory Arbitration and Various Forms of Mock Trials WHO Usual Participants with Mediators, Retired Judges and Experts

Download Presentation

Stage 4: Non-Binding Dispute Resolution

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Stage 4 non binding dispute resolution

Stage 4: Non-Binding Dispute Resolution


Definitions

Definitions

  • WHAT

    • Assistance of a Third Party to Reach a Mutually Agreeable Solution

    • Mediation, Conciliation, Advisory Arbitration and Various Forms of Mock Trials

  • WHO

    • Usual Participants with Mediators, Retired Judges and Experts

    • Services Provided by Organizations such as the American Arbitration Association and the International Chamber of Commerce

  • WHY

    • Last Attempt for a Solution with a Control Over the Outcome

    • Costs Becoming an Issue

  • HOW

    • Understand the significance of non-binding

    • Choose the appropriate non-binding DART technique

    • Follow the necessary processes


Case study condo project

Case Study: Condo Project

  • Refurbishing an Old Apartment Building and Selling the 41 Existing Units

  • US$ 6 Million Worth of Repairs

  • Developer as Construction Manager, in Charge of Preparing an Offering for Prospective Buyers, Under the Supervision of the Designer

  • Main Participants: Developer, Designer, Homeowners, Subcontractors

  • Different Types of Subcontracts: Fixed-price, Extra Work Order, Cost Plus, Unit Price


Case study the problematic

Case Study: The Problematic

  • Poor Oversight and Lack of Strong Management on the Part of the Developer

  • Subcontractors Cutting Corners on Lump Sum Contracts

  • Subcontractors Taking Advantage of Extra Work Contracts Billed by the Hour

  • Variations From the Offering and Violation of the State Building Codes

  • Unsatisfied Homeowners


Case study parties attitudes

Case Study: Parties’ Attitudes

  • Some Problems Did Not Stem From the Developer’s Negligence.

  • The Building Inspector Signed off on the Code Violations.

  • The Main Interest of the Homeowners Is the Quality of the Work Rather Than the Cost.

  • The Homeowners Association Hired an Attorney.

  • The Lawyers Were Sympathetic to the Homeowners: They Did Not Stress on the Developer’s Obligations but Insisted on Having the Work Thoroughly Done.


Case study important issues

Case Study: Important Issues

  • Are the Parties Committed to Resolving This Dispute Effectively?

  • Should Either of the Participants Make Concessions in Order to Reach a Solution?

  • What Effect Did the Hiring of the Lawyers Have on the Negotiations Between Them?

  • How Might a Non-binding Third Party Make Each Party See the Other Side?

  • Who Should Pay for a Third Party If Needed?


Outline

Outline

  • Importance of Non-Binding philosophy

  • Mediation

  • Conciliation

  • Advisory Arbitration (Non-Binding Arbitration)

  • Fact-Based Mediation

  • Mini-Trial or Executive Trial

  • Summary Jury Trial

  • Voluntary Settlement Conference (Rent-A-Judge


Non binding dispute resolution characteristics

Non-Binding Dispute Resolution: Characteristics

  • Voluntary Participation of the Parties

  • Selection of the Third Party by Mutual Consent

  • Last Attempt for a Non-Binding, Non-zero Sum Outcome


Non binding dispute resolution survey results

Non-Binding Dispute Resolution: Survey Results

  • A Survey Conducted by the Johnson & Higgins Construction Group with the Aid of Arthur Andersen (ENR, 1/15/1996)

    • 200 of the Top 500 Design Firms in the US Were Investigated.

    • Design Firms that Use at Least One of the Three Risk Management Programs (Total Quality Management, DART, Partnering) Had the Lowest Professional Liability Losses and Insurance Premiums.

    • Table Associating Cost Savings with Adopted Management Program


Non binding dispute resolution dpic cos inc

Non-Binding Dispute Resolution: DPIC Cos. Inc

  • DPIC Cos. Insurance Company and the “ Mediation Works!” Incentive Program


Outline1

Outline

  • Importance of Non-Binding philosophy

  • Mediation

  • Conciliation

  • Advisory Arbitration (Non-Binding Arbitration)

  • Fact-Based Mediation

  • Mini-Trial or Executive Trial

  • Summary Jury Trial

  • Voluntary Settlement Conference (Rent-A-Judge)


Mediation

Mediation

  • Mediator, Facilitator and Translator of Positions

  • Exchange of Statements Between Parties and Mediator

  • Brief Case Summary Given by Each Party’s Advocate

  • Individual Meetings with Mediator

    • Objectives

      • Parties Revealing Things They Were Hiding to the Opposite Party

      • Mediator Playing the Devil’s Advocate and Presenting New Scenarios

      • Each Party Assessing Settlement Possibilities and Opportunities


Benefits of mediation

Benefits of Mediation

  • “Reduces the hostility between the parties and helps them to engage in a meaningful dialogue on the issues at hand;

  • Opens discussions into areas not previously considered or…developed;

  • Communicates positions or proposals in understandable …terms;

  • Probes and uncovers additional facts and the real interests of parties;

  • Helps each party to better understand the other parties’ views and evaluations of a particular issue, without violating confidences;

  • narrows the issues and each party’s positions, and deflates extreme demands;

  • gauges the receptiveness for a proposal or suggestion;

  • explores alternatives and searches solutions;

  • identifies what is important and what is expandable;

  • prevents regression or raising of surprise issues; and

  • structures a settlement to resolve current problems and future parties’ needs.”

AAA,2000


More benefits

More Benefits

  • Mediation vs. Court: Mediation Provides a Wider Range of Settlements (Money Damages, Injunctive Relief, Declamatory Judgments)

  • Savings of 80% of Court and Counsel Costs (Meyer, 1995)

  • 90% Success in Dispute Resolution (ENR 2/14/1998)


Mediation vs arbitration

Mediation vs. Arbitration

Lipsky,et.al,1997


Mediation styles in the uk

Mediation Styles in the UK

Institutionalized Mediation

Informal Mediation

Evaluative Mediation

Facilitative Mediation

Centre for Dispute Resolution CEDR

Institution of Civil Engineers ICE

Gould,et.al,1998


Enforcement of mediation in japan

Enforcement of Mediation in Japan

Procedure A: Two-step process

Mediation or Conciliation using third party

If both parties agree

Arbitration

Construction Disputes Resolution Committee

Procedure B: One-step process

Peña-Mora,et.al,2002


Outline2

Outline

  • Importance of Non-Binding philosophy

  • Mediation

  • Conciliation

  • Advisory Arbitration (Non-Binding Arbitration)

  • Fact-Based Mediation

  • Mini-Trial or Executive Trial

  • Summary Jury Trial

  • Voluntary Settlement Conference (Rent-A-Judge)


Conciliation

Conciliation

  • Steps

    • Conciliator’s Evaluation of the Dispute

    • Conciliator’s Written Proposal for Dispute Resolution

    • Acceptance or Rejection of the Proposal by Both Parties

  • Worldwide Recognition

    • A Mandatory Step in Dispute Resolution, as Provided by ICE in the Standard Form of Contract for Engineering Design

    • Part of New Zealand’s “ Conditions of Contract for Building and Civil Engineering Construction” Since 1987


Outline3

Outline

  • Importance of Non-Binding philosophy

  • Mediation

  • Conciliation

  • Advisory Arbitration (Non-Binding Arbitration)

  • Fact-Based Mediation

  • Mini-Trial or Executive Trial

  • Summary Jury Trial

  • Voluntary Settlement Conference (Rent-A-Judge)


Advisory arbitration non binding arbitration

Advisory Arbitration (Non-Binding Arbitration)

  • Arbitration without Binding the Parties into the Third Party’s Decision

  • Suitable for Disputes with Technical and Legal Matters

  • Fact-finding Effort and Exchange of Information Between Parties Rather Than Simple Communication and Cooperation to Reach Settlement

  • Advisory Opinion: Similar to Neutral Advisor but Third Party Intervenes When a Dispute Arises


Outline4

Outline

  • Importance of Non-Binding philosophy

  • Mediation

  • Conciliation

  • Advisory Arbitration (Non-Binding Arbitration)

  • Fact-Based Mediation

  • Mini-Trial or Executive Trial

  • Summary Jury Trial

  • Voluntary Settlement Conference (Rent-A-Judge)


Fact based mediation

Fact-Based Mediation

  • Combination of Advisory Opinion and Mediation

  • Steps:

    • Mediator Selected Jointly by the Two Parties When a Conflict Arises

    • Review of Evidence and Documents

    • Confidential and Detailed Reports to Each Party (Potential Costs of Litigation, Probable Outcomes of a Proposed Binding Procedure, Alternatives for Settlement, Settlement Recommendation)


Outline5

Outline

  • Importance of Non-Binding philosophy

  • Mediation

  • Conciliation

  • Advisory Arbitration (Non-Binding Arbitration)

  • Fact-Based Mediation

  • Mini-Trial or Executive Trial

  • Summary Jury Trial

  • Voluntary Settlement Conference (Rent-A-Judge)


Mini trial or executive trial

Mini-Trial or Executive Trial

  • Voluntary, Private, Non-binding Procedure

  • Same Proceedings as if In front of Court or Arbitration Panel

  • “... a brief presentation of each side’s ‘best case’ arguments in the presence of principal executives of both parties, whose efforts are usually facilitated by a third party neutral,” [Groton (1997)]

  • Advantages

    • Non-binding Results

    • Effective Mutual Participation

    • Guaranteed Privacy

    • Control Over the Process

    • Cheaper than Litigation or Arbitration


Outline6

Outline

  • Importance of Non-Binding philosophy

  • Mediation

  • Conciliation

  • Advisory Arbitration (Non-Binding Arbitration)

  • Fact-Based Mediation

  • Mini-Trial or Executive Trial

  • Summary Jury Trial

  • Voluntary Settlement Conference (Rent-A-Judge)


Summary jury trial

Summary Jury Trial

  • Professionals with Expertise in the Specific Field in Dispute as Members of the Panel Parties

  • Presentations as the Last Opportunity for a Non-Binding Solution, Before Binding Arbitration or Litigation

  • A Counsel from Each Party Making Presentations in Front of a “Rented” Jury of Six People

  • Very Limited Time Frame for Presentations

  • Provision of an Understanding of”How a Potential Jury Will React to the Case” Without Taking the Case to the Court


Outline7

Outline

  • Importance of Non-Binding philosophy

  • Mediation

  • Conciliation

  • Advisory Arbitration (Non-Binding Arbitration)

  • Fact-Based Mediation

  • Mini-Trial or Executive Trial

  • Summary Jury Trial

  • Voluntary Settlement Conference (Rent-A-Judge)


Voluntary settlement conference

Voluntary Settlement Conference

  • Conferences in a Legal Framework

  • The Neutral Facilitator/Mediator :

    • A Retired Judge Selected by Mutual Agreement of Both Disputants

    • Prior Experience in Construction Disputes

  • Characteristics

    • Schedule Conferences and Follow-Up Meetings Not Subject to Legal Formalities, Thus Faster Process

    • Proceedings as in a Court Process

    • Pinpointing Legal Issues in the Dispute

    • Tentative Compromises

    • Advisory Settlements

    • Confidentiality During Conferences


Outline8

Outline

  • Importance of Non-Binding philosophy

  • Mediation

  • Conciliation

  • Advisory Arbitration (Non-Binding Arbitration)

  • Fact-Based Mediation

  • Mini-Trial or Executive Trial

  • Summary Jury Trial

  • Voluntary Settlement Conference (Rent-A-Judge)


Condo project

Condo Project

  • The Lawyer Hired by the Homeowners Adopted a Hard Position Even Though the Developer Recognized His Commitments

  • The Developer Hired a Third-party to Develop a Non-binding Solution

  • Third-party’s Opinion:

    • Upwards of Half a Million Need to Be Spent by the Developer to Meet His Obligations

    • Issues Resolved on Case By Case Basis

  • Results

    • $50,000 as Third-Party’s Service Fees

    • Homeowners Requesting US$2 million

    • Developer Willing to Pay Half a Million in Improvements

    • Failure of Mediation: Lack of Commitment of Parties, Unrealistic Expectations of Homeowners

    • Litigation Staring 10 years ago and Still in Process


Summary

Summary

Mediation

Conciliation

Advisory Arbitration

Fact-Based Mediation

Minitrial

Jury Trial and Rent-a-Judge

Flexibility:decreases along the continuum, less chances for win-win solutions

Formality:increases as the techniques required more predefined steps

Third Party Role: moves from a facilitator of communications to a judge or jury with only advisory opinion

Costs:expenses should be expected to increase as the procedures become more complex

Peña-Mora,et.al,1997


References

References

  • [AAA, 2000] : American Arbitration Assiociation. A Guide to Mediation and Arbitration for Business People 2000.

  • Beresford Hartwell, 1998] : Beresford Hartwell, Geoffrey M., (1998). The Relevance of Expertise in Commercial Arbitration. " Arbitration Procedures: Achieving Efficiency Without Sacrificing Due Process." Last Update: 22 June. Paris. Downloaded from the web on April 5, 1999 www.ciob.org

  • [Coates, 1997] : Coates, Tom, (1997). ADR is (not) for Wimps. International Commercial Litigation, Vol. 17 pp. 46-48. March, London. Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC. 1997.

  • [ENR, 1/15/1996] : Schriener, Judy. Partnering, TQM, ADR Lower Insurance Costs. Engineering News Record. McGraw-Hill, New York. Vol. 236 (2) p.16. January 15, 1996.

  • [ENR, 2/14/1998] : Engineering News Record. Contracts, New AGC Contract has Owner Input. McGraw-Hill, New York. Vol. 240 (7) p. 14 February 16, 1998.

  • [ENR, 7/11/1994] : McManamy, Rob. Industry Pounds Away at Disputes. Engineering News Record. McGraw-Hill, New York. pp. 24-27. July 11, 1994.

  • [Fenn et al., 1998] : Fenn, Peter, O’Shea Michael, and Davies Edward (1998). Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management in Construction an International Review. E & FN Spon, London, ISBN 0-419-23700-3

  • [Gould, et al.,1998] : Gould, Nicholas and Cohen, Michael. ADR: Appropriate Dispute Resolution in the U.K. Construction Industry. Sweet & Maxwell, London. Vol. 17. April 1998.

  • [Groton, 1997] : Groton, James. ADR in the Construction Industry. Dispute Resolution Journal Vol. 52 (3) pp. 48-57, Summer, 1997.

  • [Hollands, 1989] : Hollands, David S. FIDIC Provision for Amicable, Settlement of Disputes. International Construction Law Review. Issue 1. pp. 33-43. 1989

  • [Hunter et al., 1995] : Hunter Keith, and Hoening, James. Construction Dispute Prevention Comes of Age. Dispute Resolution Journal pp. 53-54, January 1995.

  • [Langeland, 1995] : Langeland, Erik, (1995). The Viability of Conciliation in International Dispute Resolution. Dispute Resolution Journal pp. 34-41. July

  • [Lipsky et al., 1997] : Lipsky, David B., and Seeber, Ronald, (1997). The Use of ADR in U.S. Corporations: Executive Summary. Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations. Downloaded from the web on April 25, www.irl.conell.edu

  • [Macneil at al., 1994] : MacNeil, Ian, Richard Speidel and Thomas Stipanowich. "Federal Arbitration Law: Agreements, Awards and Remedies Under the Federal Arbitration Act." Little, Brown and Company. Vol. 3, Ch. 33. 1994.

  • [Meyer, 1995] : Meyer, Judith, (1995). Mediation Works…With the Least Damage done to the Parties’ Egos and Pocketbooks. Dispute Resolution Journal pp. 44-47. April

  • [Peña-Mora et al, 2002] : Peña-Mora, F., Sosa, C., and McCone, S. Introduction to Construction Dispute Resolution. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2002

  • [Treacy, 1995] : Treacy, Thomas B., (1995). Use of ADR in the Construction Industry. Journal of Management in Engineering Vol. 11 (1) pp. 58-63. January/February, 1995.

  • [Zack b, 1997]: Zack, James G., (1997). Resolution of Disputes: The Next Generation. AACE Transactions. pp. 50-54.


  • Login