Stuck in Divorce Court? Here is Your Last Chance to Cut Costs and Aggravation

By Anthony C. Adamopoulos

Are you in divorce litigation?

Are you having second thoughts – time standards, discovery cost, no trial in sight? Enough!

You have complained to your attorney and your attorney reports that your spouse’s attorney has heard the same complaints from your spouse. Your attorney suggests mediation or conciliation.

What is the difference between Divorce Mediation and Divorce Conciliation?

Mediation is an independent, voluntary, confidential process conducted by a mediator, who is neutral. The mediator will:

-Assist you and your spouse in identifying and discussing those issues keeping the two of you from settlement.

-Explore with you and your spouse various avenues to resolution.

-Develop a settlement acceptable to you and your spouse.

-The two of you will select the mediator. The mediator’s fees will be split between the two of you or paid as the two of you agree.

The major benefits to Mediation are:

-The mediation is private. There is no report to the Judge.

-The mediator will provide all the time you and your spouse need to work on a resolution.
Experienced mediators have settlement rates of between 85% and 97%.

-If the mediation is in the 3-15% that fail, you and your spouse may enter a written agreement (stipulation) stating that all that was agreed to in the mediation shall not be litigated at trial.

The major negatives to Mediation are:

-The Mediator is paid.
-If the mediation is in the 3-15% that fail, the parties will have to return to the litigation process for the unresolved issues.
-Since you are in litigation, you must get permission from the judge to “take a time out” for mediation. Your attorney will handle this.

Conciliation is a court related process in which a court appointed neutral (the Conciliator) assists parties to resolve their case by:

1. Clarifying the issues preventing a settlement; and then
2. Assessing the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s arguments; and
3. If the divorce cannot be resolved, then the Conciliator explores the steps which remain to prepare the case for trial.

The Court usually allocates two hours for the Conciliation session. The Conciliator is not paid, but there is an administration fee, currently $50.00 per party.

The major benefits to Conciliation are:

-The trained Conciliator will assess your “side” and your spouse’s “side”. You will then be able to consider the assessment in planning your next step, e.g., trial or settlement.
-The Conciliator does not get paid.

The major negatives to Conciliation are:

-The Conciliation lasts a short time, contrasted to Divorce Mediation.
-The Conciliator may report her/his assessment to the Judge and any opinion as to whether someone is not acting in good faith.

What should you do?

Statistically, 97% of divorce litigation will settle within days of the trial. That means, even though you and your spouse each paid an enormous amount of money to get ready for trial, it may never happen (97% of the time).

The sensible thing is to avoid more costs now, stop the litigation, and settle your differences in mediation or arbitration.

Read the original blog here

MBA’s Conflict Resolution Week

By  Michael A. Zeytoonian, Member of the MDRS Panel of Neutrals/Guest Blogger

An annual national tradition in the legal community is the celebration of “Conflict Resolution Week” (CRW) and “Conflict Resolution Day” (CRD) on the third week and the third Thursday of October respectively. This tradition reportedly started here in New England by the New England Association for Conflict Resolution (NE-ACR). It is a week and a day to shine a spotlight on one of the most important bodies of work that lawyers and mediators do – help people effectively resolve disputes. This year, CRW will be from October 16 through October 20, with October 19 as CRD, and the Massachusetts Bar Association (MBA), through its Dispute Resolution Section, will be celebrating these events in a big way, from Springfield to Andover to Marshfield to Cambridge to Boston!

Dispute Resolution (DR), historically referred to as “alternative dispute resolution” or ADR, was once an alternative to going to a trial to get a case resolved. But recent trends show that people are increasingly choosing to resolve their disputes using these other ways of resolving their disputes more so than going to trial, and often in place of the entire litigation process. In the early 1980’s mediation was rarely used, arbitration was just beginning to be used more regularly by businesses and Collaborative Law (CL) had not even been created yet. (CL was created through the efforts of one attorney in Minnesota in 1990). Today, mediation is the most frequently used means of resolving disputes, even more so than trials or arbitration. As a result, many practitioners and organizations, including the Massachusetts Bar Association’s (MBA) Dispute Resolution Section Council, have “dropped the A” in ADR and now refer to these other options as either DR or DRA (dispute resolution alternatives), reflecting the fact that people are intentionally turning to mediation, CL or arbitration to resolve their disputes. Trials today are rare – 97% of cases filed in courts settle and do not go to trial – and have become the default, to be used only when another DR process doesn’t result in a full resolution of the matter.

To celebrate the emergence of DR, and to help spread the word throughout the Commonwealth about what DR is, how it works and when and how it is being used to successfully resolve disputes, the MBA, through its DR Section Council’s efforts, is offering five different events, one on each day of CRW and each one in a different region of our state. All five the programs are free and open to the public. The MBA encourages anyone interested in DR as well as lawyers, practitioners of DR, judges, law school students and the general public to attend one or more of these programs.

Conflict Resolution Day on October 19 will feature a gala Reception at the John Adams Courthouse’s Second Floor Conference Room in Boston, starting at 5:30 pm, with a program opened by our two Chief Justices Ralph D. Gants and Paula M. Carey and featuring as its keynote Kenneth Weinberg, a man who has done important work in several conflict situations including 9/11, the Boston Marathon Bombing and other hotspots and events around the world.

The Peacemaker, a documentary film on the outstanding work around the world’s trouble spots of one man, Padraig O’Malley, will be the featured focal point of the Friday, October 20 event. The screening of this film will begin at 7 pm at Harvard Law School’s Ames Auditorium. After the film, both Mr. O’Malley and the film’s producer/director James Demo will be part of panel about the film and Mr. O’Malley’s ongoing work. This event is co-sponsored by the Harvard Program on Negotiation.

Other events around the state will recognize the work of those hundreds of volunteers working all through the state in court-connected community mediation programs (October 16 in the afternoon at the Hall of Justice in Springfield), peer mediation and other programs designed to address and resolve youth and community disputes (October 17 in the late afternoon at Massachusetts School of Law in Andover) and the use of mediation and CL to resolve disputes arising out of families in transition – divorce, inheritance and family business succession matters (October 18 in the early afternoon at the Ventress Memorial Library in Marshfield).

We encourage you to attend one or more of these events, learn more about DR and encourage others who may be interested in knowing about the many options available to them for resolving their legal issues to join in the celebration. For more information or to RSVP, please visit the MBA’s website at www.massbar.org.

Exceptions to Mediation Confidentiality

by Brian R. Jerome, Esq.

In an important decision, the Appeals Court has decided in ZVI Construction Company, LLC v. Levy, et al., (Docket No. 15-P- 359) (Oct. 6, 2016) that Massachusetts should not recognize a “fraud exception” to the confidentiality of mediation among business litigants who were represented by counsel. Judge Cynthia J. Cohen wrote on behalf of the Appeals Court that whether to recognize a fraud exception to the confidentiality of mediation communications has been “an undecided question in Massachusetts.” In rejecting a fraud exception, she noted that by passing G.L.c. 233, §23C (Massachusetts’ Mediation Confidentiality Stature), the legislature “has recognized the importance of preserving the confidentiality of communications made during mediation,” She also noted that even the drafters of the Uniform Mediation Act, adopted by 11 states and Washington, D.C. “specifically considered and rejected” a fraud exception to the protection given to mediation communications.

In ZVI a contractor alleged that it had reached an agreement with a business at a mediation whereby the business, about to receive a $250,000 payment from a former partner to settle a separate dispute, fraudulently represented that the money would be received and then passed through to the contractor. When it was not so paid, the contractor sued the business and theirattorney and firm, saying the attorney fraudulently induced it to settle with a statement he had allegedly made during mediation that the funds would be transferred when received. The full text of the opinion can be accessed at : http://www.mdrs.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ZVICONSTRUCTIONCOMPANYLLCvs.FRANKLINLEVYanother.pdf

This decision is important because confidentiality is at the heart of every mediation. It is what allows for candid disclosures of private information and creates and preserves a sense of security for the parties during settlement discussions in order to generate the possibility of settlement. It is in essence an assurance that that no damage will be done to their legal case by what is done and said during the mediation.

The Massachusetts Mediation Confidentiality Statute, General Laws c. 233, s. 23C, is now over 30 years old and was created when mediation was in its infancy in Massachusetts. Yet there have been very few cases presented seeking exemptions from its blanket privilege against disclosure of information shared in the presence of a qualified mediator, despite the revolutionary expansion of the mediation field.

The recent decision in the ZVI case correctly states that s.23C does not include an exception for fraud, nor did the further written mediation agreement entered into by the parties with the assistance of counsel. As such, the Court correctly refrained from creating a fraud exception to s.23C nor the confidentiality agreement separately entered into by the parties.

Some eleven states, but not Massachusetts, have adopted the Uniform Mediation Act (UMA) which carves out certain exceptions to non-disclosure where the societal interest in obtaining information contained in mediation communications may be said to outweigh its interest in the confidentiality of the mediation process. Examples of this include, but are not limited to, communications concerning commission of or planned commission of a crime, child abuse and neglect, evidence that a person poses a danger of physical harm to himself or others, to prove or disprove a claim of professional misconduct or malpractice filed against a party or mediator, and allowance for a waiver of privilege by the parties. As noted by the ZVI Court, an exception for fraud was considered by the authors of the UMA but not included as an exception.

While some commentators suggest that some reforms to s. 23C may be worthy of consideration, where grave injustices to the otherwise unprotected or vulnerable may occur without disclosure, it more appropriately should be the legislature’s function and not the Courts to carve out such limited exceptions in Massachusetts.

Fraud however, by definition, involves misrepresentation of material facts to induce action with detrimental reliance, all factors subject to interpretation and vagaries. As in ZVI, parties, particularly those who are represented by counsel, most often have information about their opponent’s proclivities, can exercise due caution during the mediation process to avoid blind reliance on representations proffered to them and often have independent means of obtaining supporting evidence of fraud and avenues of recovery available to them.

As experienced mediators know, misrepresentations or mischaracterizations of facts is unfortunately not a rare or unique occurrence at mediations, and are more often than not appropriately dealt with within the confines of the confidential mediation session itself. That having been said, law makers should be concerned about the chilling effect on mediation confidentiality that would occur if the broad area of fraud is categorized as an exception to non-disclosure.

Question is raised for your consideration: Do you feel that any reforms need to be made to the Mediation Confidentiality statute in Massachusetts or, do you feel that it continues to properly serve the important interest in mediation confidentiality and, as such, if it is not broken, why fix it?

Have your say! Please click the link to our Facebook page to join the discussion.

Celebrate Conflict Resolution Week October 16-22

In 2005, the Association for Conflict Resolution [ACR] designated the third Thursday in October as Conflict Resolution Day, and later, the American Bar Association [ABA] designated the third week of October as Mediation Week.  Over the past decade, many states and other organizations have proclaimed days, weeks, and months in this honor, acknowledging the commendable and empowering services provided to all people via the many methods which comprise Dispute Resolution.

The DR Section celebrates this week with you to raise awareness about the availability of proven dispute resolution services to lessen the time, economic, and emotional costs of prolonged litigation, and the settlement of conflicts at every level.  We encourage users and practitioners to
focus this week on promoting fair, equitable, and creative solutions that are acceptable to the needs and interests of all parties involved.

Do you have a favorite Conflict Resolution activity, quote, story, or wisdom that you’d like to share? Visit our Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/MassDispute/ or email us at caseadmin@mdrs.com

The Attorney, the Client, and the Mediator

by Brian R. Jerome, Esq.

What makes mediation successful?  To answer this, it is important to consider the roles and relationships between a lawyer, their client, and the mediator throughout the mediation process.  

Many of us who are attorneys can recall our law school years being focused primarily on developing strong advocacy and trial skills, with little to no emphasis placed on developing negotiation skills to reach settlement.  Litigators still rightly pride themselves on their trial and advocacy skills; it is this ability and willingness of an attorney to effectively try their case that creates the opportunity to reach more favorable pre-trial settlements.  However, the primary focus of law practice is not trial but rather the preparation, negotiation, and settlement of cases, as less than 3% of cases actually go to trial.

Mediators are experts in the complex process of negotiation and settlement of disputes, skilled facilitators who orchestrate mediations like efficient business meetings.  They create dynamic, structured, and respectful climates, and encourage all parties – as well as their counsel and/or insurers – to express themselves as needed so as to completely grasp all aspects of the conflict, material and human.  S/he helps the parties focus on fundamental needs and priorities, seeking out and encouraging common ground toward the achievement of satisfactory settlement.

Effective mediators go beyond simple facilitation of the process, exploring the parties’ positions, raising questions regarding these positions, conducting reality testing, and focusing the participants on the potential strengths and weaknesses of their case, preferably in a non-threatening and confidential manner.  Capable mediators give honest feedback, cutting through posturing and argumentativeness to help parties get down to the business of resolution.  Mediators help the parties develop an agenda, identify key interests, and create a realistic action plan.

An attorney’s role in the mediation process is both as advocate and advisor to their client.  It is the attorney who has prepared, investigated, discovered, and presented the case for the client.  S/he advises the client when and if mediation is appropriate – whether at the beginning, before suit is filed – or during (or after) the discovery process is completed.  In most, but not all cases, the attorney has engaged in a negotiation process to attempt settlement before formal mediation is commenced.  It is the lawyer’s role to explain to their client the nature of the process and what to expect during mediation.  Further, the lawyer assists the client in making an informed choice of the mediator based upon the type of case, as well as the background and experience of the mediator.  

Attorneys convey the benefits of mediation to their clients and prepare them so as to take full advantage of what mediation offers.  In that regard, attorneys should determine directly from the mediator the process they employ, and should describe this process to the client.  For example, counsel should review the expected initial joint session and the likely private caucuses thereafter.  It is also important to review who will talk and when,
who will take the lead role (if applicable), and how that may change as the mediation progresses.

The attorney advises the client on the substantive law relevant to the case and to the greatest extent possible, anticipates the arguments that the other side is likely to make at the session.  A client’s level of trust in their lawyer can be badly damaged if the client learns of potential risks for the first time at a mediation, such as that there is substantial risk of summary judgment before trial, or that the forecasted legal fees will be more than previously anticipated.  The mediator will likely be discussing these issues and relevant risks in private caucuses, and the client is likely to hear similar points from the opponent during the course of the mediation.  An attorney and well-prepared client are more likely to be convincing that their position is serious and reasoned, as opposed to mere posturing.  These perceptions are often translated back to the opposing party through the mediator.

The client should also have the benefit of their lawyer’s opinion of likely outcomes at trial and/or valuation of the case prior to the mediation.  This enables the client to begin considering a range of acceptable outcomes as part of the process.  For example, in a personal injury case the lawyer may advise the party of possible outcomes regarding the issue of liability, as well as reasonable and realistic ranges of a monetary judgment. The client should be strongly encouraged to come to the mediation with an open mind, avoiding bottom line positions. 

It is important that clients understand the confidentiality of the mediation process, both under the terms of the written mediation agreement in effect, and by applicable statutes or laws, such as in Massachusetts, MGL c. 233, s.23c.  The client should be informed how this confidentiality applies to both the initial joint session and, importantly, how the private discussions or caucuses with the mediator are themselves confidential. 

Confidentiality creates the foundation of the mediation process and allows parties and their counsel to speak openly at the session about their case and legitimate needs. Confidentiality allows the parties to make reasonable demands and offers with communications being protected from disclosure at trial should the matter not resolve. The more that a mediator can learn – in confidence – about the fundamental needs of the parties, the better they are able to foster a resolution that best satisfies everyone involved. Principally, a mediation is for and about the parties.  It is the client’s case and they ultimately decide whether to accept settlement or not, after considering the advice of their counsel.  Most parties who proceed to mediation seek to resolve their case at that session so as to avoid the continued anxiety, time, and expense of further litigation and the uncertainty involved in going to trial.  Many parties feel that mediation is equivalent to their day in court, an opportunity at long last to express their arguments, perspectives, and feelings to both the opponent and their expert and impartial mediator. 

Parties come to mediation with differing levels of experience, both as to litigation in general and the mediation process specifically.  Some clients have never participated in a mediation.  Others, such as insurers, may have significant experience in both litigation and the mediation process.  Mediators assess these varying levels of experience and ensure that all parties equally understand the neutral’s role and the mediation
procedures to be employed.  At the opening session the mediator should clearly set forth the procedures and background rules, explain the mediator’s role and impartiality, and review mediation process confidentiality.

It is not uncommon for parties to come to mediation with intense emotions, anger dating back to the underlying event giving rise to the claim, or with frustration emerging from the claims and litigation process.  These emotions need to be expressed before an aggrieved party can consider resolution.

Some attorneys limit their client’s active engagement during the course of the mediation session.  While in some cases this may be advisable (i.e. where the client has a tendency to speak about their case in a damaging manner, has excessive anger, and/or otherwise would disrupt the mediation process), counsel should nevertheless expect that a mediator will seek to engage the client in discussion, at least in private caucuses, to assess their views, emotions, needs, and priorities.  It is important to afford a mediator this opportunity with the client to directly establish confidence, impartiality, and trust.  A lawyer should consider advising the mediator in advance of the session of any client issues, such as intense emotions or unrealistic expectations; most mediators are happy to speak with counsel prior to the mediation session in this regard.  Attorneys should consider the advantages of direct client participation as they advise as to their clients’ level of involvement.

Attorneys understandably tend to make strong opening statements at mediation. Persuasive opening statements have the advantage of impressing the strength of their arguments, belief in their case, and preparedness to proceed to trial if mediation is not successful.  Many clients expect strong advocacy from their attorney at mediation, however should be educated that resolution is more often achieved when adopting a more collaborative approach.  Mediation is not a trial, and remarks made in joint session should not be inflammatory, belligerent, or personally offensive to the opponents or their representatives.  Such statements often widen the rifts that exist between disputants.  In such instances conciliators expend precious time during the session, in effect rehabilitating the offended party to a point where compromise and collaboration on their part is possible.  At the very least, counsel should consider expressing good faith intentions during the joint session, and that it is their desire to avoid, if possible, further litigation and trial.  Such representation often enhances negotiation outcomes.   

Attorneys can face challenging clients with unrealistic expectations regarding their likelihood of success at trial and/or expected verdict ranges, even when duly counseled.  In such cases, the mediation process allows clients a first-hand glimpse into the strengths of the opponent’s case and gives a preview of how the evidence could play out at trial.  The mediator guides parties through reality testing and risk analysis, with settlement often presenting more attractively than other alternatives.  Mediators ask hard questions to all sides in the dispute.  A practiced mediator, after having established rapport and having demonstrated themselves as being both impartial and equitable, can speak in private caucuses about the strengths and potential weaknesses of the case. Mediators must understand the thoughts and expectations of all parties, and rationally discuss the risks involved in proceeding to trial, existing judge or jury trends, the time and expense of further litigation, and the anxiety and frustration which too often accompany that path.  

At times, the attorney has unrealistic expectations for their client’s case.  Being sure to respect and foster the important attorney/client relationship, a mediator may need to engage counsel similarly about their thoughts and expectations, providing them with a different perspective on potential risks and nuances of a given case. 

Some attorneys are uncomfortable continuing to stress weaknesses in their case to the client or insurer, anticipating a negative response.  In such cases it can be very powerful for the parties to hear directly from an unbiased mediator the shortcomings of the case so they can consider a more realistic evaluation.

This is why it is critical for all parties, as well as insurers with needed settlement authority, to attend the mediation.  Even insurer participation by telephone is a poor second to actual mediation attendance.  In such circumstances, the mediator’s ability to speak to the insurer is limited and, too often, entirely restricted; to make the most of the process, the attorney should have his insurance client attend the session and work with the mediator directly.

Finally, participants are often anxious to depart the session when settlement is reached.  They do not wish to remain for the processing of a signed settlement agreement, preferring to prepare and sign such an agreement in the following days. However, most mediators know of cases where the agreed upon settlement falls though, whether a party changes their mind or a misunderstanding arises as to previously agreed-upon terms.  At the very least, there is the need for a minimal, written, signed, and legally binding settlement document at the end of every successful mediation.  The attorney, the client, and the mediator have all worked hard and must ensure that the settlement is binding.  It is critical to thoroughly sculpt the terms of the mediation settlement agreement and/or further releases while all parties are immediately available.

We hope all parties better understand the multifaceted roles and relationships that come into play during the mediation process.  Dispute Resolution methods provide effective alternatives to the time, expense, frustration, and uncertainty of ongoing litigation.

A Giant Leap Forward: Dispute Resolution Drops the ‘A’ and Launches MBA Section

“Over the past decades, no area of practice has grown to have a wider impact on legal operations than dispute resolution.” -Brian Jerome

The numbers don’t lie: 95% of pending personal injury lawsuits end in a pretrial settlement (according to Law Dictionary’s website), while legal news site Above the Law reports that only 1.5% of civil cases in Massachusetts ever make it to a jury. We at MDRS are excited and grateful to have been part of this prodigious evolution in the practice of law during our 25 years of service.

Recently, our role in the DR community has taken an even more specific leadership turn. Our founder and CEO Brian Jerome spearheaded September 1 st ’s official launch of the MBA’s brand new Dispute Resolution (DR) Section. Not only does the MBA finally have a dedicated DR Section, there has been an important terminology advancement as well: previously known as Alternative Dispute Resolution, ‘ADR’ has graduated to a more appropriately-named Dispute Resolution, or ‘DR’, in reflection of its legitimate wide-ranging contributions to law.

A Resource for All

“We’re delighted with the launch of our Section, and are working hard to become the primary resource of collaboration, outreach, and service for the entire DR industry here in Massachusetts,” said Brian Jerome, Chair of the MBA’s DR Section.

The new Section is building off the dedicated efforts of the earlier committee-driven working groups to offer resources to all who wish to access them, well beyond the previously limited membership. Any MBA member can join the DR Section (at no additional charge). Participation offers many rewarding opportunities to collaborate and network with known leaders in all areas of the law, gain new information and practice skills, provide service to the community, and be part of actual industry innovation.

Goals for the 2016-17 Association Year are in development and include outreach to every law school in Massachusetts and the development of live case observation plans, establishment of an appropriate and meaningful CLE program, skills development via best practice events, focus on identifying and meeting specific needs of young lawyers and those in small firms and solo practices, and much more…all of which are being conducted with the promotion of current and future MBA membership and participation in mind.

As Massachusetts Superior Court Associate Justice Dennis Curran has expressed, “Most people don’t want to be in the legal system. [They] don’t want to go to court.” Dispute Resolution offers economical solutions, speed, confidentiality, scheduling ease, immense flexibility, high settlement rates, and in most cases, the ability to settle their case and move on with their work and lives. #DR

Mediate Disputes Between Owners and Trustees

By Jeanne Kempthorne

Life in a condominium can be challenging when neighbors do not see eye to eye—and they very often don’t. And when owners and trustees can’t resolve their disagreements, the condominium community suffers. An efficient and effective means of managing disputes is key to avoiding the “condo hell” that causes owners to sue or sell.

Mediation is an approach that is well-suited to disputes among people who have an ongoing relationship and need to work together to make decisions and solve problems. Facilitated discussion assists people with competing positions to hear each other out, prioritize issues, compromise and invent solutions, and ultimately to sign on to a deal they themselves make. Mediation offers more than a fix to an immediate problem. It can establish a mechanism for raising problems, communicating news and triaging projects. The process itself can reestablish long-broken lines of communication, breaking through stony silences and entrenched patterns of withdrawal or instant escalation.

To read the full article, please click here.

Saving $$$$ Divorcing — Financial Statements

By Guest Blogger, Anthony C. Adamopoulos

In my over 25 years of helping people facing divorce, I have seen, in almost every divorce, a reoccurring client decision that results in wasting hundreds, and sometimes, thousands of dollars.

What is that decision? The decision not to read and follow the court’s instructions on how to complete the court’s Financial Statement.

In all divorce cases, the most important document is the Probate and Family Court Financial Statement.

In an “uncontested” divorce, the judge reads the Financial Statement to help her or him decide if she or he will approve the parties’ Separation Agreement. I have seen judges, or their clerks, refuse to let uncontested divorce cases be approved because Financial Statements did not conform to the court’s instructions.

In contested cases, the Financial Statement helps the judge determine many issues, for example, the standard of living of a party, the needs of a party, and the honesty of a party.

In my office, and the offices of many attorneys I know, we do not complete client Financial Statements. No client of mine can ever say, “I do not know where that number came from, my attorney completed the Financial Statement.” Clients must complete their own Financial Statements.

The Probate and Family Court Instructions for Financial Statements can be found by going to my web site DivorcingOptions.com, then to RESOURCES, then to Long Form Instructions or Short Form Instructions.

There are about 13 to 15 paragraphs of instruction.

The instructions for both forms are accompanied by a self-calculating form for the user’s convenience.

Here is a list of the most ignored instructions:

  1. Fill in your name and address;
  2. Answer every question;
  3. If an answer to a question is 0 or none, enter 0 or none;
  4. All income and expenses are to be reported in weekly amounts with monthly figures being divided by 4.3;
  5. List all assets and present value.

5.Since the Family Court wants its instructions followed, my paralegal or I must point out what needs to be changed, in a client’s draft Statement, to comply with the court’s instructions.

Because clients are paying for time, the amount of errors and the amount of resistance (Yes, some clients resist the court’s instructions under the misbelief that the court will make an exception in their case.) can result in legal fees that are avoidable.

The take away:

The court’s instructions are few and clear. Taking the time to follow them can save you $$$$.

Please click the link to navigate to Anthony C. Adamopoulos’s website.

Collaborative Law, PEN Focus of MBA ADR Panel

by Attorney Michael A. Zeytoonian

Most people who are in a dispute think about mediation or arbitration as alternatives to lawsuits and litigation. But there are several other process choices that people have for how to resolve their disputes. That critical choice of which process to use is often the most important choice people make in resolving their legal issue. Among these other choices are Collaborative Law, Case Evaluation and a general approach called Planned Early Negotiation or PEN.

Four talented and experienced practitioners teamed up for a lively and enlightening panel presentation and discussion on these other approaches to resolving disputes on May 17 at the MBA office in Boston. The program was the last in a 2016 series of “Best ADR Practices” presented by the Massachusetts Bar Association’s (MBA) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)Committee. Brian Jerome, Esq. of Massachusetts Dispute Resolution Services in Boston and ADR Committee Chairman, along with MBA President Robert Harnais, Esq., welcomed a full and engaged audience to the program. Jerome also announced that the ADR Committee will be expanded and transformed into the new Dispute Resolution (DR) Section of the MBA starting in September, 2016 and welcomed people to join it.

Michael Zeytoonian, Esq. of Dispute Resolution Counsel, LLC in Wellesley, opened the panel discussion and served as its moderator. Zeytoonian set the tone for these “cutting edge” DR processes, suggesting a different approach to resolving disputes by designing the DR process to be responsive to the situation. He noted that processes like Collaborative Law offer parties the flexibility and agility to be shaped to the circumstances of each unique dispute, and intentionally designed for the goal of resolving the dispute efficiently and creatively.

Paul Faxon, Esq, a transactional attorney whose firm is in Waltham, explained the basic elements and components of Collaborative Law, specifically focusing on its application in small, closely-held or family business disputes. Faxon noted that this approach’s effectiveness when ongoing relationships are important to the parties, where the parties want to control their destinies and not turn the decision-making over to a third party, and where cost and time efficiency is valued. He highlighted some of the basic elements of Collaborative Law including the open and voluntary
sharing of all relevant information and the shared retaining of neutral experts that can freely and independently serve as a resource to the negotiation process.

David Consigli, a CPA and business valuation expert with the CPA firm of Alexander Aronson & Finning in Boston and Westborough, spoke about the advantages to using a neutral expert in a Collaborative case or a Mediation. He compared the role of an independent expert providing value to all parties as opposed to being hired by either the plaintiff or the defendant. He pointed out the value of having expert information available in business break-ups or partnership disputes, as well as the importance of valuation information in business succession planning.

John Fieldsteel, Esq., a lawyer, mediator, arbitrator and case evaluator whose specialty area of practice is complex construction cases, spoke about using case evaluation as a tool and an approach that can often be transitioned into mediation or used to assist a mediation. Case evaluation gives the parties a better sense of the strengths and weaknesses of their case as well as good indication of what the range of damages would be. Fieldsteel talked about the value to the parties of giving them good information, often confidentially, about the strength or viability of their positions and how useful this neutrally given information is in reaching a settlement.

MDRS Settlement Days

What’s better than settling a claim? Settling 4-8 of them – all in a SINGLE DAY. MDRS is a leading provider of Settlement Days: mediation-focused marathons conducted at the insurer’s office where 4-8 cases are lined up for time-concentrated sessions with settlement as the primary goal. Secondary in nature, but perhaps equally as critical, are the avoidance of claims’ personnel travel time and expenses, a beneficial mediation fee schedule, and high settlement rates. MDRS can work with your firm to put together a framework that fits your needs, as well as a cost-benefit analysis. Call (800) 536-5520 for further information.