What makes a good litigator?
By Stephen G Anderson LL.B
October 24, 2013
Some people might be surprised that, as a mediator, I’d want to write about litigators. Litigation is at the other end of the spectrum from mediation. Surely, I should be opposed to litigation? Well, they’d be wrong. I’m not opposed to litigation, I’m just opposed to litigation being offered when mediation or collaboration are likely to be more appropriate – which is more often in my experience.
Litigation is part of the system of dispute resolution. Litigation is probably necessary for around 20% or so of those going through separation, divorce or parenting differences. It’s necessary for those who cannot decide their own outcomes. It’s necessary for those adults, children or property needing the court’s protection. It’s necessary for those who need a law to be interpreted by a judge.
A good litigator who works on this basis, has a genuine talent for advocacy (in both meanings of the word) and a style of approach which is not aggressive or disrespectful, is someone I would be proud to call a colleague. Mediators, collaborative practitioners and litigators should all have place around the increasingly crowded dispute resolution table. We can all make a difference.
I am Stephen G Anderson and I am a professional mediator.
1 Comment
Submit a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Continue Reading
MY 3 Top Tips for Mediating Online Successfully
Mediators' excuses I know there are lots of mediators at the moment who are really worried about mediating online over...
Why Skype and Teams are not suitable for online mediation
Skype and Teams are not suitable for mediation Picture this. Your clients are due to arrive at for their mediation...
“And who is the fee-earner dealing with your matter?”
Fee earner "And who is the fee-earner dealing with your matter?" asked the managing partner of a regional law...
Stephen this is a great summary of what makes a good family lawyer – I mean a lawyer that still has the “court tool” in the box. Over the last five years, since becoming a collaborative lawyer and advocating (!) the non-court route, I have had to deal with the conundrum of how to deal with court cases. Almost exclusively they have been issued by the other party since 2008.
Being in a court building does not change who we are as lawyers or what we stand for. In many cases a collaborative lawyer’s office is across the road from the court. Why should 50 feet in distance change what we are about? A collaborative approach can be taken in the corridors of the court and in the judge’s chambers. I have managed to achieve excellent results for my clients in those situations and I think if more lawyers who claim to be collaborative but who may not “walk the walk” thought about that for a minute, they could see that the same or better result result could be achieved with such an approach. Families can leave that process less fragmented and may feel less traumatised. What is there not to like about that?