Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- Acknowledgments
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) Around The World
- Chapter 3 The History of JDR in Canada
- Chapter 4 JDR's Response to the Weaknesses of Litigation
- Chapter 5 ADR v. JDR
- Chapter 6 JDR Produces Satisfactory Results: The Divorce Case
- Chapter 7 Advantages and Disadvantages of JDR
- Chapter 8 Justice and Fairness in JDR: The Motor Vehicle Accident with Pedestrian Case
- Chapter 9 Types of Judges: Skill, Temperament and Attitude in JDR Temperament in an Estate Dispute Case
- Chapter 10 Confidentiality and Privacy in JDR
- Chapter 11 Which Cases are Unsuitable for JDR?
- Chapter 12 Juggling Complexity in JDR: The Falling Rocks Case
- Chapter 13 Divergent Interests of Adversarial Lawyers and Their Clients
- Chapter 14 JDR and the Role of Precedent: The Medical Malpractice Case
- Chapter 15 The Importance of a Robust JDR Intake System
- Chapter 16 The Chief Justices and How to Triage Special (SPEC) JDR Cases
- Chapter 17 Specialized JDRs (SPECs): A Look at Three Cases and the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic
- Chapter 18 How to Prepare for and What to do During a JDR: The Power Pole Case
- Chapter 19 The New World of Online Dispute Resolution (OJDR)
- Epilogue: The Future of JDR
- Bibliography
- Appendix
- Teaching Guide
- Case Studies
- Index
Chapter 13 - Divergent Interests of Adversarial Lawyers and Their Clients
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2024
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- Acknowledgments
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) Around The World
- Chapter 3 The History of JDR in Canada
- Chapter 4 JDR's Response to the Weaknesses of Litigation
- Chapter 5 ADR v. JDR
- Chapter 6 JDR Produces Satisfactory Results: The Divorce Case
- Chapter 7 Advantages and Disadvantages of JDR
- Chapter 8 Justice and Fairness in JDR: The Motor Vehicle Accident with Pedestrian Case
- Chapter 9 Types of Judges: Skill, Temperament and Attitude in JDR Temperament in an Estate Dispute Case
- Chapter 10 Confidentiality and Privacy in JDR
- Chapter 11 Which Cases are Unsuitable for JDR?
- Chapter 12 Juggling Complexity in JDR: The Falling Rocks Case
- Chapter 13 Divergent Interests of Adversarial Lawyers and Their Clients
- Chapter 14 JDR and the Role of Precedent: The Medical Malpractice Case
- Chapter 15 The Importance of a Robust JDR Intake System
- Chapter 16 The Chief Justices and How to Triage Special (SPEC) JDR Cases
- Chapter 17 Specialized JDRs (SPECs): A Look at Three Cases and the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic
- Chapter 18 How to Prepare for and What to do During a JDR: The Power Pole Case
- Chapter 19 The New World of Online Dispute Resolution (OJDR)
- Epilogue: The Future of JDR
- Bibliography
- Appendix
- Teaching Guide
- Case Studies
- Index
Summary
The lawyer's job is to represent his or her client and to be the conduit through which the client receives information about the legal process. Lawyers play an instrumental role in ensuring that clients understand all the information they receive. They also give advice to their clients, especially with regard to the question central to JDR: “Should I settle this case?”
It is not always obvious what the attorney's interest is in promoting settlement. Is it the same as their client’s? If the case settles, the lawyer might well be forgoing additional fees. If a case can immediately settle in mediation with a skilled attorney, why wasn't the agreement reached previously in trial? Why did it take so long and cost so much to get to that point?
There have always been lawyers who argue against mediating legal disputes. Some of the classic anti-mediation claims are: “We are big people, we can settle the darn thing, what do we need a third party for?” and “Why do our clients have to be there?” This is a bit reminiscent of the familiar argument, “We settle almost all cases anyway, what more do you want?”
The other reaction is an unspoken sentiment that runs through many cases. As one lawyer said, “Early settlement, in other words, settlement using court-connected mediation, perhaps kicks me squarely in the pocketbook. [The lawyer goes on to say] … If you are being entirely selfish just looking at the lawyers’ interest, then why do I want this?” This statement—anonymous of course—reflects the anxiety that many lawyers feel looking at the phenomenon of the court-connected mediation, especially where it is mandatory and especially where it takes place early in the litigation process.
The third reaction—another “pushback”—is that mediation will produce a “watered- down legal system.” This view proports that because mediation is not decided by a decision-maker according to recognized principles of law, legal principles are not imposed and required, and this is a dilution of what we think of as a justice system.
Another lawyer said: “I am personally concerned that if only 3 percent of cases actually go to trial; that means 97 percent of the time all of the pre-trial stuff is wasted to a large extent, so … 97 percent of the money that I make is from wasted time?” (Murphy and Molinari 2009).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Judicial Dispute ResolutionNew Roles for Judges in Ensuring Justice, pp. 111 - 116Publisher: Anthem PressPrint publication year: 2023