John Wotton , the Law Society President, gave a talk to the Said Business recently. A full report can be found at Neil Rose’s Legal Futures blog here.
I found this paragraph, possibly misquoted or out of context, to be curious.
“John Wotton said that with the narrowing division between solicitors and barristers, “there must be competitive advantages and efficiencies to be gained from having the full range of dispute resolution services under the same roof”.”
This indicates two things to me.
- Blindspots. If my understanding of this passage is correct then John Wotton indicates that the full range of dispute resolution services is comprised of the two elements that precede that statement, namely the solicitors and the barristers. That seems to be a dangerous report from the crow’s nest. What about mediators, arbitrators, coaches, facilitators, legal executives and many others? My concern is that the profession underestimates the role and value offered to the “client with a dispute” at its peril. There is a growing range of professionals who serve clients with disputes. The legal profession needs to recognise that and ask
- What are they doing?
- How?
- How do they appeal to our previously exclusive marketplace and those who come into it?
- How does their work reflect upon our own very well established (some will say archaic) systems?
- The confusion within the language used. The phrase “Dispute resolution” has diverse meanings. The work carried out by the contentious arm of the legal profession and portrayed as Dispute Resolution is often received as being disingenious. The reaction to it might be “This is not dispute resolution. This is outright litigation or positional argument and negotiation carried out against a backdrop of potential litigation.” It seems to be the case that when people now hear the words “Dispute resolution” they anticipate an Alternative Dispute Resolution process, namely mediation, collaboration, interests based negotiation, understanding each others needs and circumstances and building consensus or, at the very least, tolerable solutions.
It may well be that the derivation of the ADR brand came as being an alternative to the conventional and well established legal processes. It is perhaps encouraging that the conventional now sounds peculiar and almost wrong. What was once the alternative to dispute resolution is perhaps claiming the title of, quite simply, dispute resolution. It is as though we are getting to the stage where the choice is between dispute resolution or instructing a conventional solicitor or barrister.
Of course this is too simplistic. Many solicitors and barristers do bridge conventional and what used to be alternative dispute resolution practice.
I am aware that working in the ADR sector and being such a keen supporter of it that I might be victim to my own blindspots.
Perhaps the public perception is that solicitors and barristers represent the “full range of dispute resolution services.”
Please, please, don’t let that be the case.
What do you think?
Few people are starting to call me as a mediator rather than me as a solicitor, simply wanting a resolution to their dispute rather than Court.
Unfortunately, then the other parties legal advisors might suggest I am not independent and “may” mediate but with a different mediator.
I do commercial disputes primarily.