Our group subscribes to the idea that one model of dispute resolution does not fit every client.

    We believe it is necessary to design dispute resolution to suit the parties and their problems. A dispute might require a single attorney acting as a neutral mediator to meet with two parties to work out an agreement, or the dispute might be more complicated and involve a number of parties with each party requiring an attorney plus a variety of neutral experts to furnish assistance and information. 

    The members of this group are not law partners or members of the same law firm. The common interest that has brought this group together is our desire to assist clients in resolving disputes as painlessly, quickly and inexpensively as possible. This is done by making litigation the last rather than the first option for dispute resolution.

    We believe that interest based negotiation provides superior results for the majority of our clients. We advocate for our clients, but we also listen to the interests of everyone in the dispute, so that, as much as possible, we can assist the parties in finding solutions to meet the legitimate needs of each person or entity involved.


(What We Really Think!)

If you have been served in a lawsuit, it is still not too late to talk settlement. Never proceed without trying to reason with the other parties. It is only then that you can begin to really know your options.



Clients have found that disputes can be resolved without destroying relationships.
    We can explain your options, so that you may choose the method of dispute resolution that you feel is most appropriate. Occasionally, parties will find that litigation is their only option due to the unwillingness of some of the other parties to consider settling. The worst thing that can happen if you ask for settlement is that the other side says, “No.” The best thing that can happen is saving time, money, and peace of mind.
    Obviously, we are a new breed of lawyers. Most lawyers follow the traditional method of representation which is based on positional bargaining. Litigation lawyers decide the legal rights of their clients, lay as much blame on the other parties as possible, and seldom if ever trust lawyers representing the other parties. Winning is the most important goal, but sometimes “winning” can cost the parties more than it is worth. When the trial is over, the lawyers mount their horses and ride away to their next battle while the clients are left to clean up after the horses.

    We believe that it is better to stop looking back at blame. We look forward to resolution. Rather than blaming, we simply ask each party to assume responsibility for their actions. We do not rely on the law alone to dictate the outcome. We rely on the parties to maintain control over decisions and to determine equitable solutions that are acceptable to all.

     Since not many lawyers are currently practicing in this manner, it is extremely important that the lawyers that do practice this way trust each other. Each person in this group trusts the others to proceed honestly and in good faith. We rely on the word of each other more than we would rely on statements made under oath in a court of law. We know that if anyone of us violates the trust of another group member or knowingly allows a client to behave dishonestly, that person will lose the trust and confidence of the other group members and destroy his or her professional reputation.