100% of Nothing is Nothing: Justifying the Contingency Fee

What is contingency fee?

Here is the definition:

A method of paying a lawyer for legal representation by which, instead of an hourly or per job fee, the lawyer receives a percentage of the money her client obtains after settling or winning a case.  Often contingency fee agreements award the successful lawyer between 20% and 50% of the amount recovered [read definition on wikipedia].

In plain english, you attorney works on a "contingent" basis, meaning the attorney's payment is dependent on the outcome of the case.  If you recover money, the attorney gets a percentage of the recovery.  If nothing is recovered, you pay nothing in fees.

What's Good About Contingency Fees?

For the client, contingency fees have many positives.

The cash-flow impact of litigation is substantially lower, you gain leverage over the other party who needs cash flow to fund the case, and a portion of the case’s risk is transferred and borne by your attorney.

The only “negative” of a contingency fee is that the fee can be substantial. When a recovery is made, the attorney fee is usually between 30-45% of the amount recovered. But, as we’re about to explain, this really isn’t as bad as it sounds.

100% of Nothing is Nothing

For the client, contingency fees have many positives.

The cash-flow impact of litigation is substantially lower, you gain leverage over the other party who needs cash flow to fund the case, and a portion of the case’s risk is transferred and borne by your attorney.

The only “negative” of a contingency fee is that the fee can be substantial. When a recovery is made, the attorney fee is usually between 30-45% of the amount recovered. But, as we’re about to explain, this really isn’t as bad as it sounds.

WLG Loves Contingency Fees

We love representing clients on a contingent fee basis for one very important reason: We can more zealously represent our clients.

When clients are billed for fees, it’s inevitable that bills will be challenged and cash crunches will arise. This effects how our firm can represent a client.

If $10,000 in discovery motions are needed, for example, but the client can’t afford it, the client’s claim is weakened.

Contingency fees result in more aggressive litigation…which results in higher settlements and more successful trials.

This blog post was originally posted on our Wolfe Law Rocks blog, and can be read here.

Arbitration May Apply to Non-Signatories

The Supreme Court issued a ruling on May 5, 2009, which may further support Washington precedent holding non-signatories to binding arbitration. The ruling was first reported on Davis Wright Tremaine's Washington Construction Law Blog on May 6, 2009.

In Arthur Anderson LLP v. Carlisle, the Supreme Court found that clients of Arthur Anderson had set up small limited liability companies (LLC) as tax shelters for investments. Those LLCs entered into arbitration agreements with the brokerage as a resolution process for any disputes between the parties. But the individuals, themselves, had not personally executed these arbitration agreements.

The Supreme Court, acting under prior precedent, upheld enforcement of the provisions claiming that the agreement was intended to benefit and both the individual and the brokerage against the individual. Therefore, the court would mandate arbitration of the matter.

Washington Construction Law Blog's author, John Parnass, cites Davis Wright Tremaine's own case, McClure v. Davis Wright Tremaine, 77 Wn. App. 312 (1995), whereby the Supreme Court rendered a similar finding, permitting a non-signatory to take advantage of a binding arbitration clause.

The case's result should provide interesting options to lawyers and contractors wishing to push a less time consuming method of dispute resolution, perhaps even in the arena of lien litigation, which often involves third parties.

How To Pay Your Attorney Less

As Chris Rock stated in his 2008 tour "Kill the Messenger,"  "yeah, I said it." 

Times are tough, and it's important for your company to make smart economic decisions. Legal costs are clearly an area where businesses would like to scale back. 

A legal budget is not like a marketing budget, where a business hopes to get a ROI.   In fact, the terms "legal expense" and "ROI" are rarely uttered together, and for good reason.   Legal expenses are usually a business' "necessary evil."

So in these tough economic times, what can those in the construction industry do to lower legal expenses?   A few solid ideas were published in the Portland Business Journal last week, among them:

  • Handling more legal-related activities internally, rather than farming work out to law firms.
     
  • Negotiating more cost-effective compensation structures with outside counsel, including contingency and incentive arrangements.
     
  • Pursuing less risky and costly means of dispute resolution, such as arbitration and mediation, rather than litigation.

How Do These Apply to Construction Businesses?
When published in the Portland Business Journal last week, these ideas were intended to speak to businesses in general.   But how can these ideas be specifically used by a construction outfit?

It's a cinch.

Get educated about collection practices, and bring your collections department in-house.    Incorporate arbitration and mediation provisions into your contracts, or agree to arbitrate or mediate existing disputes with your adversaries.   Contact your attorney and request alternative billing arrangements, including contingency and mixed-fee agreements.

You can even hire a consultant to help lower your attorneys fees.

In the end, there are proactive and reactive measures that can be taken to lower your attorneys fees, and even avoid the need for an attorney on many matters.  

Clash of the Strip: Vegas Construction Suit to Become Big Ticket

We step away from Washington and Louisiana for a moment to explore the outside construction world, and find that a massive lawsuit has recently come up in Delaware.

The Wall Street Journal Law Blog seems to be the first to report on a Complaint filed in the Delaware Counrt of Chancery alleging the breach of joint venture between MGM and Dubai-based Infinity World Development Corp. A copy of the 13 page Complaint can be found at Wall Street Journal's website.

The suit, initiated by Infinity, alleges that MGM (the shell of wholly-owned affiliates Mirage Resorts and Project CC) has breached a joint venture agreement to develop City Center, a massive Las Vegas epicenter for tourism.

The Complaint states that MGM has issued a recent 10-K statement which illustrates that the massive company can no longer pay its debts as they become due, including a debt to make contributions to the joint venture itself (See Page 2 of Complaint). The business' failure allegedly will cause substantial and irreparable damage to Infinity World Development, who would have to pick up slack in financing the outlandish project.

Now - Infinity World Development wants out. Significant cost overruns and delays have caused the project to run ashore with problems. Estimates for completion continue to grow with each passing day.

Though the suit concers over $10 billion in open obligations, the Complaint itself is quite simple. Infinity has alleged breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and sought declaratory relief for its obligations under contract.

No response has yet been offered by MGM in pleading form. But WSJ.com reports that MGM has already issued a public statement:

MGM fired back on Tuesday, calling the lawsuit “completely without merit.” A spokesman later added that the company “is ready, willing and able to fund its share of the costs to complete CityCenter, including a required payment this week.”

The Wall Street Journal further believes that the suit has all the makings of a giant. The celebrity and capital involved makes this case certain to draw considerable legal attention.

Civil Suit Arising: Steel Supplier Causes Rift in Seattle Light Rail Project

The Seattle Times is reporting that a local Seattle steel supplier provided falsified statements to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) concerning the quality of steel provided for the Seattle Light Rail project. In the Times' report, David Appleby, the owner of Appleby NW could face up to five years in prison and fines of $250,000.00 for his misrepresentations to the FTA because the the Light Rail project is a federally managed project, overseen by the FTA.

According to the Times, Appleby supplied over 1.5 million pounds of Oregon-made steel rated for 36,000 pounds per square inch (psi) of force under a $240 Million dollar contract. Unfortunately for Mr. Appleby, the project specifications for the massive Light Rail project, which is managed by Sound Transit and funded by the FTA, required steel rated for at least 50,000 psi.

Appleby's charge stems from mill certificates that he forged, once learning that the steel was underrated for the specifications. General contractors are obligated to follow the strict terms of specifications provided to them.

Appleby's attorney, Irwin Schwartz, admitted that Appleby intentionally changed the certificates.

"People panic and they cover up"

Especially on public works projects, contractors must obtain consent from the managing government authority in order to wane or deviate in any way from given specifications. Permitting a contractor to vary from the specs is not only dangerous, but is competitively unfair to other job bidders who lost out in their bids to perform the work.

In this case, it is certain that the Sound Transit would not have agreed to such a change. Early estimates are that the 50,000 psi demand was a conservative requirement. Thus the 36,000 psi steel may be sufficient to withstand the project's engineering requirements. Based upon this assertion, Appleby intends to defend against any claims for backcharges against his contract.

One final note, the contractor is also under the bus for entering into an oral contract with a subcontractor that provided Appleby's drilling on the project. The Sound Transit, like many public entities, requires that all contracts be in writing.

Though the jockeying has just begun, it is fairly certain that a civil suit between the contractor and Sound Transit is readying, over dollars being withheld from the contractor's pay.

 

Arbitration is Stronger in 5th Circuit, but is there a Dark Side?

Does Arbitration Have Warts?
Over the past twenty years, Alternative Dispute Resolution processes like arbitration have become mainstream in the American legal system.  

Once considered a creative solution to the expensive and unpredictable legal system, it appears that these ADR procedures may themselves have warts.

The question of whether the "vanishing trial" phenomenon is a good or bad thing is not necessarily a new question...but the latter description does seem to be gaining some steam.  

Take for example an interview in this month's ABA Journal with "Lion of the Bar" Joe Jamail, who had this to say about arbitration and mediation:

Do you know what the root of mediation is?  Mediocrity!  The move to replace jury trials with mediation and arbitration is actually an effort by elitist in our society to control how disputes are decided.

Mr. Jamail isn't the only one with this opinion of ADR.  In 2007, the Arbitration Fairness Act was introduced to the U.S. Senate and, according to the Wall Street Journal, would effectively do away with mandatory arbitration agreements used widely in many industries.

This legislation and opinion isn't unprecedented - take, for example, the Brazilian Arbitration Act and its disfavor for arbitration agreements in "contracts of adhesion."  These opinions, of course, notwithstanding the recent study that found arbitration to be mildly favorable to consumers.

Also, remember that one of the most significant changes to the AIA contracts documents in its 2007 edition was to the dispute resolution articles, now allowing parties the option of selecting ADR.

Arbitration Agreements Grow Stronger in 5th Circuit
Despite the rising controversy over whether arbitration and ADR are positive or negative alternatives to traditional litigation, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals published two important opinions this past month regarding agreements to arbitrate.

First, in Agere Systems, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, the 5th Circuit held that the question of arbitrability should be decided by an arbitatror, and not the court.

Second, just last week in Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. Bacon (appeal from S.D. Tex), the 5th Circuit reserved a district court decision vacating an arbitrator's award for "manifestly disregarding the law," stating that the manifest disregard of law by an arbitrator is not a reason to vacate an award.

Law.com published an article about this important ADR opinion, either underlining or exaggerating the ruling by stating:

Abandon all hope, ye who seek to overturn an arbitration award, because the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that manifest disregard of the law by arbitrators is no longer a ground for vacatur under the Federal Arbitration Act.

The 5th Circuit's March 5 decision in Citigroup Global Markets Inc. v. Bacon will make parties think twice -- or three times -- before agreeing to submit to arbitration to settle their cases.

What Does It All Mean?
This much appears clear: (a) The role of ADR is growing; (b) the debate of its value rages; and (c) arbitration agreements are stronger than ever.

At the Construction Law Monitor, we have discussed ADR options and their pros and cons. When a dispute arises, it can be costly, lengthly and/or devastating to your company. It's important for all businesses to consider the dispute resolution options out there.

Whether arbitration is the best option for your business or construction project should not be a foregone conclusion.

Like litigation, arbitration and ADR has its fair share of warts, and with the most recent rulings from the 5th Circuit, those considering arbitration ought be cautious in case the nay-sayers turn out to be right.

 

Arbitration: Looking Like a Good Thing for Consumers

Arbitration is looking better and better everyday to consumers. Though it may not seem to have a major impact on the construction industry yet - arbitration agreements are commonplace in your agreements.

It doesn't matter whether you are a general contractor, subcontractor, supplier, renter, or consumer - the fact is you will likely run into a binding arbitration clause that will require you to bring your claims for product liability, design liability, delivery or installation before a private neutral.

But is this good for you as claimant, or is this one big bad frightening risk of loss? 

Recent legislation has been proposed by the federal legislature which would seek to limit arbitration "coercion." The bill is entitled the Arbitration Fairness Act and has been presented by Congressmen Durbin and Feingold.

The bill's supporters believe that U.S. consumers have been harmed by being forced to appear before hand-selected arbitration forums caused when vendors place binding clauses in their sales contracts, slips and invoices.The general belief, as put forth by Mr. Nathan Koppel of the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog, is that arbitration outfits tend to side with corporate defendants in order to shore up continual and future use of their venues.

But a new study by Northwestern Law School suggests that consumers generally come out on top and that their claims are heard in under seven months, far shorter than a state or federal court disposition, which may take up to two years. The study included an examination of a relatively small sample of over 300 cases, and it is uncertain how cases were selected.

The study does show that there is not such a wide discrepancy in rulings, as was once thought to be. You can read about the study on their website, and follow updates of commenting correspondents

Time for Prompt Payment Acts in Washington & Louisiana?

This weekend, I read a post on the South Carolina Construction Law Blog about Texas' Prompt Payment Act.  It caused me to do a little online research on similar acts around the country, finding them in Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, Wisconsin, New York, federally, and elsewhere.  

A "Construction News" pamphlet from Baker Donelson [pdf] in the Winter of 2004 has a good article about the statutes in AL, TN & GA, the theme of each act simply being this:  "Prompt Payment Acts Set Payment Guidelines for Construction Work."

It's no secret that payment problems are rampant in the construction industry.  And unfortunately, the old statement that "possession is 90% of the law" has some truth to it. 

Large well-funded construction companies can hold progress payments at the end of a project for trivial reasons, and strong-arm its subcontractors into settling for less.  Prompt Payment Acts aim to equalize the playing field a bit, applying penalties against those who misapply funds or try to strong-arm subs and suppliers.

So, do they exist in Louisiana and Washington?   Mostly....no.  

Both Louisiana and Washington lack a pure "Prompt Payment Acts."  Those victim to the misapplication of funds must rely on jurisprudence or other possibly applicable statutes, discussed below. 

Misapplying Funds in Louisiana
Buried within the Private Works Act in Louisiana is La. R.S. 9:4814 (A), which provides as follows with regard to the misapplication of funds:

No contractor, subcontractor, or agent of a contractor or subcontractor, who has received money on account of a contract for the construction, erection, or repair of a building, structure, or other improvement, including contracts and mortgages for interim financing, shall knowingly fail to apply the money received as necessary to settle claims to sellers of movables or laborers due for the construction or under the contract. Any seller of movables or laborer whose claims have not been settled may file an action for the amount due, including reasonable attorney fees and court costs, and for civil penalties as provided in this Section.

This provision actually works as a "prompt payment" requirement, but as is evidence from its terms it only has limited applicability. 

First, the contractor must "knowingly" misapply the funds.  Second, the only parties qualified to recover the penalties of the provision are "sellers of movables" and "laborers." 

The Private Works Act in Louisiana specifically distinguishes between laborers and subcontractors, and so subcontractors who provide labor to the project would not likely qualify for the penalties under La. R.S. 9:4814 - although the matter has never been decided.

Unfortunately for everyone not mentioned by §9:4814, Louisiana doesn't provide a remedy when funds are misapplied, and the parties must rely exclusively on the conditions of its contract.

Misapplying Funds in Washington
In 2006, the Washington Court of Appeals published an interesting reversal in Westview Investments, Ltd. v. U.S. Bank National Association [pdf of decision], addressing the issue of misapplying construction funds in Washington.

Since progress payments are not funds held in "trust" by statute in Washington, the court explained that they may be considered trusts if appointed as such by the parties - namely, through contract.

According to the Westview decision, progress payments made by a project owner to a general contractor constitute "trust funds" for the benefit of subcontractors, when the agreement between owner and contractor is based on AIA A201 (1997).    

Interfering with any "trust funds" would be a tortious conversion - and the Westfield court even goes so far as to rule that banks may be liable for misappropriating trust funds when it uses these funds to  pay down the borrower's debt to the bank (see discussion here).

Time for A Prompt Payment Act?
Is it time for a Prompt Payment Act in these Washington and Louisiana?  

While many statutes and regulations have drawbacks, there doesn't seem to be a downside to requiring contractors to pay its bills!

Litigation is costly and time-consuming - and it doesn't seem fair that after a long, expensive battle with a better-funded opponent, subcontractors and suppliers must settle for the principal debt. 

There are ways to punish contractors in Louisiana and Washington when funds are misapplied, but it's always dependant on circumstance.  A Prompt Payment Act would help equalize the playing field for subcontractors and suppliers who rely heavily on prompt payments.

Snow Days? Really? Is Your Construction Company Expecting the Unexpected?

 

Last week, it was snowing in New Orleans. This week, it's snowing in Seattle. Two cities very rarely crippled by the white stuff both affected by it in the middle of December, as the Christmas holidays and new year approaches.

Our IT systems weathered even Hurricane Gustav, so our firm (with offices in both cities) hasn't suffered any setbacks from the winter weather. However, we're not a construction company (See SRTC Transportation Blog for example company affected by Seattle area snow).

The recent snow in New Orleans and Seattle acts as a reminder to those in the construction industry that extraordinary weather happens. And according to advocates of climate change, unusual weather is becoming less and less unusual.

Last December, in fact, the Construction Business Owner magazine published an article about Climate Change and its effect on the construction industry.

While the debate rages...one thing is certain: It's important that your company be prepared for unexpected weather.

It's no secret that unexpected events can affect a construction project. Here's a few possibilities:

  • Unexpected weather can delay the project days, weeks, even months;
  • Unexpected weather raises special safety concerns;
  • Unexpected weather can delay payments.

Remember that while unexpected weather can delay the project, payments, and more....it does not delay contractual and statutory deadlines and obligations.

If you're project is delayed because of weather conditions, make sure that you following the letter of your contract to request a Change in the Contract Time immediately. If payment is delayed because of weather, be certain to file your construction lien before you run out of time.

Handling unexpected weather isn't necessarily a reactive measure. Contractors can prepare themselves for the unexpected by putting effort in the drafting of Force Majeure clauses in its contract. While frequently overlooked, these clauses can have a powerful impact on construction projects, the handling of weather-related delay and potential exposure on a tardy project. The Mid-West Construction Blog wrote about the significance of these clauses last year.

With that, I'll leave you with a quote from the 2001 film, Bandits:

"One of the things we always like to remind ourselves before we went into any job was expect the unexpected. Right? Right? Always sounds like good advice. Except, of course, if you are expecting the unexpected, then well then it really isn't really unexpected anymore. Is it? And that leaves you vulnerable to the truely unexpected. Because, you're not expecting it."

Legal Solutions in a Tough Economy

In October 2008, Wolfe Law Group's Scott Wolfe was a featured speaker at Dillard University's Fall Contractors' Forum. Scott spoke to the attending contractors about legal solutions for their businesses in a tough economy.

Among the items discussed were the importance of good collection procedures, the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution and the proper use of lien laws.

Wolfe Law Group prepared some materials for the presentation, outlining the discussion and providing the contractors with legal articles related to the topics and even a collections letter template. The document is now available online for viewing and downloading through JD Supra here.

Part Two: Now What? Three Simple Principals To Mind When Your Involved with a costly dispute.

The construction industry is riddled with risk and disagreements, and some say it's only a matter of time before a construction organization finds itself in litigation. Regardless of its certainty, litigation is a fact of business and has the potential of costing your organization thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions.

Accordingly, your business wants to weather the litigation storm as painlessly and quickly as possible. Here are three principals to mind if your construction company is facing litigation.

1) Settlement Should Always Be An Option
If the dispute is in litigation, there were likely settlement attempts before formal filings. Simply because these pre-litigation settlement efforts have failed, however, does not mean post-litigation settlement efforts are without utility. To the contrary, the reality of litigation often hits parties only after filing and can be a powerful influence to settle.

Attorneys oftentimes are scorned by the public for their desire to settle cases rather than litigation. The practice, however, is not the result of laziness or a fear of the courtroom. To the contrary, attorneys are usually looking out for the best interests of their clients - and in most cases, it's in all parties' best interest to settle the case.

Litigation of all types is expensive. The associated legal fees, expert fees and court costs associated with taking a case to trial is going to be a minimum of $10,000 - $15,000.00, regardless of the amount in dispute. The more complex a case, the more expensive the litigation - oftentimes costing parties hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars.

As such, parties should make objective reviews of their legal positions and consult with attorneys to discuss the challenges of their case, its possible exposure, and estimated legal costs.

Judges and mediators often say, "a good settlement is when both parties leave unhappy." While unhappiness is not the most pleasant end to your legal dispute (in which you may be emotionally and personally invested), it may be the best. Depending on the associated risk of the case and your company's exposure, full-blown litigation may result in a much worse scenario than a mediocre settlement.

2) Explore Alternative Dispute Resolution
It's never, ever too late to explore alternative dispute resolution options. In the past, parties have chosen to mediate or arbitrate their differences even on the eve of trial - and successfully so.

In the event of litigation or arbitration, however, you shouldn't wait that long to explore the possibility to resolving the parties' differences through mediation or some other less expensive resolution program.

Mediation may be a great alternative to litigation since it is entirely driven by the will of the parties, voluntary and less expensive than a formal dispute. However, mediation is not free (depending on complexity of your case and length of mediation, it may cost between $2,500 and $25,000, or more). Accordingly, you want to agree to participate only if both parties come to the table in good faith to settle the case. Both parties, in other words, should be prepared to have a flexible settlement discussion.

Settlement discussions within mediation are confidential, allowing the parties to discuss details of the case frankly and to exposure each other's weaknesses. Furthermore, in the event mediation is not successful, it is a great way to prepare your for trial and to gain a stronger understanding of your opponent's position.

See: ADR Articles on Construction Law Monitor

3) Good Counsel is Priceless
The type of attorney you'll need to most effectively and least expensively litigate your claims will depend on your desires and circumstances. And unfortunately, there are so many shades of desire and types of circumstances that your company may face in the event of litigation.

A good counselor will review your claims, defenses and financial health to determine the best course of action for your company. While it's always important for an attorney to be a qualified litigator, "being right" or "litigating your claim" might not be best for your business. There are a number of factors to consider before setting forth on your litigation course.

Counsel should review the risk associated with your claim, your company's financial exposure and your ability or desire to go through to trial to properly advise an organization on its options to proceed.

Perhaps it is in your company's best interest to push the matter towards trial as rapidly as possible....but that it not always the case. Mediation may be a better option, or some other sort of settlement procedure.

In short, it's important to have a counselor to give solid and objective advice about your company's legal position and options. Your selection of legal counsel is perhaps the most important component of your claim. As such, be careful to choose wisely.

See: Is Your Counsel Helping or Hurting?

Electing ADR Post-Contract: It's Never Too Late


This article is part of a three part series titled "Alternative Dispute Resolution - Why, When & How." To read the other parts in this series, or to read more articles about ADR, navigate to the Wolfe Law Group ADR page here: ADR.

Under most circumstances, discourse about Alternative Dispute Resolution centers around the construction contract and the importance of "ADR clauses." However, it's never too late for the parties to agree to an alternative dispute resolution process.

Agreeing to ADR before filing suit
At the onset of a dispute, the parties can simply agree to forego filing a traditional lawsuit and to engage in some type of ADR process. When this choice is made, the parties are still "contracting" to submit to binding arbitration, but the notion is sometimes forgotten when the original contract is already history and the dispute has already riled the parties.

It's advisable to include ADR clauses in the original contract to avoid this "heat of the moment" problem, but there are many circumstances when the parties - even at odds - can agree to ADR post-contract.

During the course of a construction project, there are many situations whereby the parties are amicably dealing with one another but encountering some disagreements. The ADR process can be very valuable to the parties in this scenario.

The parties can simply agree to submit to the decision of a neutral, or to participate in a speedy mediation on this issue. The decision of the neutral or compromise of the mediation can likely resolve the issue, prevent delay in scheduling and keep the parties on good terms.

It's oftentimes more difficult to engage an opposing party in ADR in a more mature dispute, as the parties are less likely to agree to anything at the beginning of a adverse proceeding. However, the benefits of the ADR process may outweigh any urge to agree with the adversary, and if litigation is actually commenced, the parties can still later suspend the suit in lieu of ADR.

Agreeing to ADR after suit is filed.
As suggested above, it's common for parties to submit to an ADR process even after suit has been filed. Depending on the county / parish of your litigation, there are different time requirements for when the parties may or may not participate in alternative dispute resolution. Across the board, however, these requirements are extremely liberal, and the parties are usually only limited when the action is close to trial.

While any ADR process may be elected during litigation, the most common ADR vehicle used by litigants is mediation. Mediation allows the parties to meet, express their position, and evaluate its pros and cons and the risks of litigation in hopes of reaching an acceptable compromise.

Mediation may be initiated most anytime, but litigants most often submit to mediation at the beginning of litigation or towards the end. There are pros and cons to mediation during both periods.

The pros and cons to mediating at the start of litigation:

Pros
  • The parties have not incurred much expense and frustration, and therefore may be more willing to compromise to avoid the same;
  • Even if a settlement is not reached, it provides the parties with an opportunity to analyze its case in-depth, and to get a better picture of the adversary's position.
  • Usually, neither party has clear leverage over the other party. Oftentimes, at the end of litigation, certain facts have been exposed that weakens the position of one party. At the start of litigation, however, the party with the weaker position has a little more leverage than it will later in the proceeding.

Cons
  • The parties are less willing to compromise. The emotional connection to the dispute is still clear and present, and the expenses of litigation have not been exposed;
  • Stones are unturned - or, in other words, both parties are working on a limited set of facts and understanding of the issues at play. The litigation process allows the parties to research its and the opposing party's position, and a mediation immediately after suit proceeds before this researching opportunity.

The pros and cons to mediating later in litigation:

Pros
  • The parties have incurred much expense and frustration throughout litigation, and they are more willing to compromise certain positions in exchange with "getting the matter behind them."
  • Through the litigation process, the parties have an opportunity to develop their respective positions and to investigate their adversary's position, which gives them a good understanding of their risks in going to trial.
  • The threat of trial is real and present, and the parties are more likely to make compromises to avoid the unpredictable event.
  • The "demands" of the respective parties are more developed and understood.

Cons
  • Since the positions of the parties are better developed and understood, the party with leverage will be aware of the fact and be less willing to make a significant shift in their position - and thus, settlement may be less likely.
  • With trial around the corner, parties may be more willing to wait the extra few weeks or months and let a judge or jury decide.

Electing ADR Post-Contract
Electing ADR post-contract is easy, but the actual process will likely depend on the ADR provider chosen by the parties. Typically, the parties should agree with one another in writing, and then submit the written agreement to the ADR provider.

The American Arbitration Association provides the following clauses as example clauses for choosing ADR post-contract:

Construction Dispute Mediation Submission Clause:
The parties hereby submit the following dispute to mediation administered by the American Arbitration Association under its Construction Industry Mediation Procedures (the clause may also provide for the qualifications of the mediator(s), method of payment, locale of meetings, the tolling of the statute of limitations, pre-dispute resolution step clause with time frames and any other item of concern to the parties). If a party fails to participate in any scheduled mediation conference, that party shall be deemed to have waived its right to mediate the issues in dispute.

Construction Dispute Arbitration Submission Clause:
We, the undersigned parties, hereby agree to submit to arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association under its Construction Industry Arbitration Rules the following controversy: (cite briefly). We further agree that the controversy be submitted to [one] [three] arbitrator(s). We further agree that we will faithfully observe this agreement and the rules, and that a judgment of any court having jurisdiction may be entered on the award.

Large, Complex Construction Dispute Submission Clause:
We, the undersigned parties, hereby agree to submit to arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association under its Procedures for Large, Complex Construction Disputes the following controversy [describe briefly]. Judgment of any court having jurisdiction may be entered on the award.
Tags:

Alternative Dispute Resolution - Why, When & How (3-part series)


This article is part of a three part series titled "Alternative Dispute Resolution - Why, When & How." To read the other parts in this series, or to read more articles about ADR, navigate to the Wolfe Law Group ADR page here: ADR.

In the world of construction litigation is perhaps unavoidable.

The complications and high stakes of each construction project make the construction industry a hotbed for dispute and litigation, and failing to prepare for disagreements can prove fatal.

Through dispute resolution planning, construction companies can minimize their potential exposure in the event of a disagreement.

Problems with Litigation
An adequate discussion of all the drawbacks to litigation would consume a volume of books, and so this brief summary should be taken in context. Nevertheless, it seems to be common knowledge that litigating disputes in courts of law can be time consuming, expensive, unpredictable and generally unfavorable to any of the participants.

The average lawsuit takes between 2-5 years from start to finish, and can cost thousands of dollars. The process is draining on the participants emotionally and physically, and in the end, the parties usually compromise their initial positions to reach a "settlement."

Unlike in dispute resolution proceedings, a party to litigation cannot pick the judge or the venue, nor can the parties dictate the rules. Litigation is consumed by procedural requirements, motion hearings and discovery - each item contributing to increased time and expense.

The Option of Alternative Dispute Resolution
Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") is centered around the idea of the parties agreeing to resolve their differences through a non-litigation process. Instead of filing a lawsuit and incurring the associated expense and risk, the parties each submit to another procedure. This procedure is usually less formal than the state or federal court system, and is governed by rules crafted by the parties themselves.

Alternative Dispute Resolution can be chosen by the parties at anytime. Normally, parties will include an Alternative Dispute Resolution provision within their contract requiring each other to use ADR in the event of a dispute. In other circumstances, however, the parties will agree to engage in ADR even after filing a lawsuit in an effort to encourage a fair and speedy resolution.

ADR Types
Since ADR is largely driven by the goals and agreement of the parties, the manner in which a dispute will be adjudicated is restricted only by the parties' creativity. There are, however, a number of 'standard' ADR mechanisms used frequently in the construction industry. Oftentimes, all three of the below types of ADR processes are used to resolve a dispute.

The three below discussed types of resolution are discussed in their usual order of use. In many cases, only one of the below ADR processes are used by the parties, and sometimes they are even mixed and matched with traditional litigation.

It's important to recognize that each process will carry delay and expense, and so it might not make sense to schedule all three processes when the parties are only arguing over $10,000.00. Furthermore, when all resolution types are used, the parties could be faced with delays and costs that resemble traditional litigation. Accordingly, parties must be careful in their selection of their own ADR rules.

1. The Construction Neutral
The "neutral" concept in construction has recently been sanctioned by huge contract document publishers like ConsensusDOCS and AIA, whose documents now contemplate the appointment of a "Initial Decision Maker" to resolve disputes quickly and on-site.

Traditionally, the Architect served as an initial decision maker in a construction project. When an owner and contractor disagreed about a change order amount or quality of work issue, the decision of the architect would be sought.

Being hired and paid by the Owner, this put the architect in an uncomfortable and conflicting position. The dispute often escalated even after the architect's decision, leaving the parties with expensive litigation and a delay in the project.

The idea of a "neutral" or "initial decision maker" simply tenders the decision-making role to a neutral third-party, appointed by the parties during or subsequent to contracting. The initial decision maker provides the parties with a fast and inexpensive third-party voice, hopefully capable of resolving the dispute and keeping the project on-track towards completion.

The decision of the initial decision maker is usually considered "final" by the parties for the purposes of the project's progress, but in almost every instance, the parties allow the decision to be disputed through further dispute resolution processes (such as mediation, arbitration or litigation).

2. Mediation
Unlike almost every other type of dispute resolution procedure, mediation does not pit one party's position against the other, does not provide a "decision" of a neutral party and is not binding upon the parties in anyway.

Contrary to any other dispute resolution procedure, mediation is a confidential meeting of the parties, whereby they each air out their positions and explore its strengths and weaknesses. The mediation process encourages settlement by providing a forum for an open discussion of the party's respectful positions, and the road ahead in the event the parties continue in their disagreement.

Normally, the mediation will begin with a meeting of all parties and the mediator, whereby each party expresses their position and their concerns. The mediator then breaks the parties into different rooms, whereby they only communicate to one another through the mediator.

Mediation is a very successful settlement tool, and when used correctly it can help parties avoid the costs and risks of litigation.

While the mediator is greatly involved with the parties and works to help them settle, he or she will not make any decisions that will binding upon the party. The mediation proceeding is only "binding" if a settlement agreement is reached.

3. Arbitration
The third and final type of dispute resolution process discussed in this article is "arbitration," perhaps the most traditional ADR procedure.

Arbitration is very similar to traditional litigation in that it involves a decision maker (i.e. judge), witnesses and testimony, a traditional review of evidence and procedural rules.

While similar to litigation in some manners, arbitration is certainly an entirely different proceeding. The parties are intimately involved with setting the rules and procedures, as well as even choosing who will arbitrate. The "rules" of the proceeding are also much less formal than traditional courts require.

In a typically arbitration, the parties will appear before a single arbitrator, or a panel of arbitrators. These decision makers are typically experienced in the field of law and industry at dispute, and they will listen to each side present their case. Thereafter, the arbitrator(s) will make a decision that is enforceable by one party over the other.

Pros and Cons of ADR
The pros and cons of ADR over traditional litigation is a worn topic.

While there are certainly a lot of positive characteristics to ADR, it is not a process that fits in every circumstance. Like almost any other legal decision, you should consult the advice of an attorney and consider the pros and cons of each procedure before deciding on one over another.

Although there are some circumstances when traditional litigation is preferred over ADR, in the construction industry ADR is a fact of life and is normally an asset to those working on projects of all shapes and sizes.

Here is an overview of some of the most discussed pros & cons to ADR:

Pros to ADR
  • ADR can help preserve the relationship between the parties. In construction, genuine disputes may arise between the parties on scope and quality issues, and although the parties are at odds over this issue they may likely have to continue working together or work on a project in the future. ADR may save the relationship while resolving the dispute.

  • The parties are in the driving seat. Unlike in litigation, the parties can choose the resolution procedures, the players, the rules...and even the outcome. Traditional litigation has rigid rules, and you get what you get. The parties are not allowed to explore creative alternatives, and the result may sometimes be unfair. When certain ADR solutions work (like mediation, or construction neutrals)....the result may actually be win/win.

  • Costs of ADR are typically lower than costs of litigation. Traditional litigation can be extraordinary expensive, regardless of whether the dispute is large or small. ADR costs more closely resemble the complexity of the dispute and the purse at stake. Further, its informality results in less obligations and lower costs.

  • ADR is efficient. ADR is run by private companies who get paid by getting claims in and out of the door. Traditional courts, obviously, do not have the same motivation. ADR moves at the pace of the parties, and not the courts.
Cons to ADR:
  • Instant Legal Remedy. Sometimes, the parties need an instant legal remedy (i.e. construction lien, construction lien removal, injunction, eviction, etc.). These instant remedies cannot often be obtained through ADR, and litigation is necessary. When an instant legal remedy is required and the parties have chosen to resolve their disputes through ADR, the party seeking the legal remedy may have boxed themselves in to an unnecessary and expensive process.

  • Loss of Leverage. Sometimes, the costs and burdens of litigation is actually leverage for one party over another. While not exactly fair, it is a fact of life in the legal world. If one party is better funded, or if one party is in possession of the money or property in dispute, the long and expensive process of litigation is actually leverage for that party against the other.

  • Quality Standards. While it might seem humorous to many to assert that the court systems have "quality control," in reality there may be more quality control in that system than in ADR systems. In court, there are manners to appeal decisions not found with most ADR proceedings. Furthermore, arbitrators, mediators and neutrals are oftentimes not decision makers by trade, and that inexperience makes them prone to mistakes.

  • Too Focused on Compromise. A pro to the ADR system is its focus on settlement and compromise, but its also a con to the system. Sometimes, the parties do not want to compromise, or they cannot find "justice" in a compromise. The ADR system's encouragement of compromise consumes a large amount of time and resources that is wasted on a litigant who seeks a final and fair determination. Even when the ADR system gets to the arbitrators, they are still less likely to impose severe penalties on one party or to make a very prejudicial decision.
Where Do I File For ADR?
With so much discussion of ADR, a reader may be quite curious as to who manages "ADR," and where the ADR courthouse is located.

Interestingly, there isn't a courthouse system for the ADR network. Every city has a number of private companies that offer ADR services, and these services are usually located in office buildings in-between doctors, lawyers and accountants. Since the parties are in the driving seat of ADR proceedings, they can even choose their neighbor or relative to conduct the proceedings (not recommended, but mentioned to highlight the informality of the processes).

Some companies are more established than others, and you should investigate any organization before choosing them to adjudicate your dispute. In many instances, the parties will actually select the ADR provider at the time of contracting .

The most popular provider of ADR services is the American Arbitration Association.

The Next Series
Next in this three part series on Alternative Dispute Resolution is a discussion on:
  • Choosing ADR in Contract: Well crafted ADR clauses and some of the factors you should consider when constructing your ADR requirements in contract.
  • Choosing ADR Post-Dispute: How to involve ADR in an already existing dispute
Tags:

Dealing With Delays During Construction

Before construction begins, everyone involved attempts to do one thing: predict the future in order to minimize the risk of unforeseen events that might delay the project's completion.

Owners, developers, contractors, subcontractors, architects, engineers, sureties, financial institutions, insurers, and vendors all want the project to be done well, and done on time. Why? Because one or more of them will have to eat the costs of substandard work or a delayed result, and that can be very expensive.

Construction delays are extremely dangerous: they can slow the project, or even bring it to a halt. Every construction project, from the smallest home addition to the tallest skyscraper, shares the same basic life cycle: (1) planning; (2) design; (3) construction; and (4) finalization.

Construction delays seriously impact each of these phases, and additional articles provide information regarding pre-construction and post-construction issues. Here, dealing with delays during construction is addressed.

What Delays Construction?

It is inevitable that delays will occur during the construction of a project. No matter how detailed the advanced planning or how intricate the contract documents, it is impossible to totally remove the reality of construction delay.

Materials and Labor Handoffs

It is understood among construction professionals that materials will be needed that haven't arrived, or materials will arrive early and need to be stored on-site. Deliveries cannot be scheduled to arrive exactly on the day they are needed.

Plus, no subcontractor can be exactly sure when another sub's crew will be ready to turn over an area to his group, so he can have the exact number of men he needs on-site to immediately take over the area. There will be an understandable delay with each transition, or "handoff" of the work areas, as carpenters and plumbers and electricians and HVAC specialists each take their turns in various project locations. During the building of a custom home, there may be between 100 and 200 handoffs, each adding in a small time lag or delay.

Weather

Weather will be a factor. Historical weather records can be obtained for the area from reputable sources such as the National Oceanographic & Atmospheric Association's weather service website (www.nws.noaa.gov). Depending upon the geographical area, and the project's time allotment, additional days can be calculated as "rain days" or "snow days" based upon historical precedent.

Waiting for materials is simply a part of the process, as is work waiting for workers to arrive. So is changing weather. Rain stops construction. Droughts delay landscaping. Weather conditions also impact suppliers, and may even damage the site.

The Unexpected Crisis

These are understood, predictable construction delays that are more easily identified and addressed in contract documents and project timetables. An experienced contractor can estimate how much time handoffs will take, as well as time lags in material deliveries, along with rain days, and time can be added into the schedule to accommodate these events before they happen.

However, the trickier aspect of predicting the time a project will need for completion comes with the unexpected issues, such as unforeseen ground conditions; owner interference, through design changes or financing concerns; and errors in the plans or specifications. Usually, these unexpected issues are serious and complex problems that can throw a project into crisis.

Minimizing the Delays

Once construction has begun, the window of opportunity to address delay issues in the planning and contracting phases has shut. However, there are still strategies to be implemented to minimize delay, such as:

1. Insure proper permits are in place before each phase of the construction.

2. Insure proper site access.

3. Insure proper on-site security to minimize theft of materials and equipment.

4. Have safety training programs as well as plans in place for emergencies (medical and otherwise). On-the-job injuries cause delay.

5. Hire only the most experienced personnel for every position.

6. Owners should minimize their change requests, and in response to any requested changes, change directives and change orders should immediately follow.

7. Insure daily communication between contractor, subcontractors, and suppliers to streamline the work/labor scheduling process.

8. Insure healthy communication between owner, architect, and contractor on progress and attempt prompt resolution of any problems that arise.

9. Monitor all cost and time schedule impacts due to turnover and production changes.

10. Remember to consider the impact of union labor (minimum hourly wages, requisite hours per day, likelihood of union work stoppages) into labor needs.

The Law Recognizes the Impact of Time Delays

The law addresses the time component in construction, and both legislation and court cases abound that attempt to deal justly with the issues of construction delays, since someone must bear the burden of their cost in both time and money. Over time, general contractors have been held financially responsible for construction delays unless certain criteria are met. If the parties wish to allocate risk in a different manner than the manner provided in the applicable state law, they can do so within the contract via a variety of "delay damages" clauses.

In essence, the law instructs the contractor to document the delay in great detail, and thereafter, the burden for that delay will be assessed based upon its character. In most states, a contractor assumes the delay cost unless it is shown to be: (1) excusable; (2) compensable; (3) critical; and (4) non-concurrent.

Excusable

If the delay resulted from an issue that no one could have reasonably foreseen, then it is deemed "excusable" under the law. Likewise, if the delay could have been prevented, but wasn't, and it was caused by someone other than the contractor, then it is also considered "excusable" as to the contractor.

The contract documents usually define "excusable" delays. Examples include acts of God, severe weather delays, labor union strikes, and design changes requested by the owner.

Conversely, "unexcusable" delays are those that the general contractor could have kept from happening. Examples include late deliveries by a supplier, and cash-flow problems.

Compensable

Again, the contract documents generally define what delay damages will be compensable. "No damages for delay" clauses are commonplace, and yet, are dealt with differently from state to state. Whether or not the contract, and/or state law, will allow the contractor to be compensated for a specific delay cost will depend upon the specific circumstance.

Critical

If the event did not impact the timely completion of the project, then it was not critical to its timing and technically, it is not a delay cost for which the contractor can get reimbursement.

Non-Concurrent

Two delays that happen at the same time are "concurrent delays" and whether or not the contractor can be reimbursed for a concurrent delay depends upon many factors: the contract language, the relationship between the delays, the state law on concurrent delay damages, etc. Usually, non-concurrent delays are the only delay costs that a general contractor can claim.

Documenting Delays During Construction

Even in the most harmonious of relationships, fully documenting the delays as they occur is recommended: a genial owner, understanding and willing to undertake the cost of a delay today, may reconsider that position by the time that the project is finished. Written documentation is in everyone's best interests.

Owners and Architects

Owners should inspect the construction as it progresses, asking questions and making notes in a chronological fashion. Architects should, likewise, keep detailed records of the building progress especially since they are likely to be approving construction as well as approving payments.

Both should keep detailed records, including dates and times for all communications; details of all conversations dealing with delay, including references made to any specific event, along with the pages of the design documents that are involved; and both should feel free to record their field inspections with photographs or videotape.

Contractors

Contractors, however, should include specific documentation within their records when unexpected construction delays occur pursuant to the requirements of both applicable law and the individual contract. Contractors not wanting to bear the cost of a delay should:

1. Give Written Notice of the Event

This should be done according to the terms of the contract, which may have detailed requirements on what the notice should say, who should receive it, and how long the contractor has to give the notice, or risk forfeiting the claim.

2. Document The Event

The event itself should be documented in the contractor's records, with information including the date of the event; who saw the event and their contact information; who received notice and when it was sent; how the event impacts construction, both long-term and short-term (including references to pages in the plans and specifications); how it increases the cost of the project; and all communications dealing with the event, including proposed change orders and RFIs. Photographs or videotapes should be taken, and kept in the documentation.

3. Create a Separate Delay File for Each Event

Original documents should remain in the ongoing record-keeping system, and copies kept here, to document the event. This separate file is easier to use if any disputes arise at a later date: it is much easier to pull these separate files and attend a meeting, mediation, or meeting with counsel than to bring the larger project files.

4. Change the Time Schedule

Calculate how the event has changed the timeline, and keep copies of both schedules (pre-event and post-event).
Tags:

When Disputes Arise: What Are Your Options?


Perhaps you are a general contractor who is being asked to bear the burden of delay damages after a season of unexpectedly heavy rains. The contract doesn't require it. Doing so may bankrupt you.

Maybe you are an owner and things are going so slow that you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. You've sold your old home and have no place to go. Or maybe your business has already marketed the grand opening and you've got customers and product scheduled to arrive -- and no place to put them.

Then again, you could be an architect. The contractor is substandard, RFIs are flying and costs are skyrocketing, and the finger is being pointed at you and your design. You know it's not design error, but the unsophisticated owner may buy the contractor's excuses.

What to do?

1. Mediation
2. Arbitration
3. Lawsuit

The traditional answer was to file a lawsuit if the dispute could not be resolved in the ordinary course of business. Today, however, there are options to filing suit that can prove to be more efficient in time and less costly for everyone. Collectively, they are labeled as "alternative dispute resolution" and each has its own set of benefits and disadvantages.

Mediation

Construction of even the most humble structure requires an interweaving of talents and a cooperation between contributors that works best when everyone is proceeding in an efficient and supportive manner. Disputes stall this process, and if informal negotiations do not find a quick answer to the problem, mediation may be the fastest method to get things smoothed out, and back on track.

Mediation is an informal process where the dispute is brought before a trained mediator for resolution. The parties can agree in advance on whether or not the mediation will be binding or non-binding upon them. The mediation can take place at any agreed-upon location, and the mediator need be only someone that the parties agree should act in this role. Ordinarily, mediators are construction professionals trained in mediation resolution techniques. Many attorneys with a background in construction law act as mediators in construction matters.

In some instances, the mediation will be a multi-party mediation since construction involves such an overlap of interests and issues. For example, representatives for the architect, general contractor, and owner may all participate in mediation. Similarly, two or more sub-contractors may participate in mediation with a general contractor.

After negotiation among the parties themselves, mediation costs are among the least expensive in dispute resolution. The mediator's fee can be split among the parties, and with adequate preparation, the issue can be resolved in a very short amount of time.

Binding mediation involves a contract between the parties in which they agree to forego the right to file a lawsuit and to accept the decision of the mediator as final resolution of the dispute. This works well with keeping a construction project up and running.

In fact, binding mediation is a cheaper and faster option to a more formal arbitration and studies show it is gaining in popularity among construction professionals. Nevertheless, formal arbitration remains the most widely used alternative resolution method in the construction industry today.

Arbitration

Arbitration is more formal than mediation, and less so than trial. Arbitration has no discovery process - there are no depositions, nor any courtroom fights over whether or not the opposing party has a right to look at certain documents, for example. However, simplified rules of evidence do apply in arbitration proceedings and the resolution itself does have some of the formalities of a courtroom.

The decision-maker in arbitration can be a single arbitrator, or a group of individuals collectively referred to as an "arbitration panel." The arbitration decision is final and cannot be appealed, unlike the traditional legal process, except in certain limited situations (e.g., the arbitrator failed to mention past business dealings with one of the parties and failed to recuse himself, etc.).

The American Institute of Architects includes a provision for arbitration of disputes in their contract forms, which have been widely used and adopted throughout the construction industry. The American Arbitration Association also promotes the use of arbitration in construction matters though its National Construction Dispute Resolution Committee ("CRE").

The CRE promulgates rules and procedures for residential and commercial construction arbitration, as well as fact sheets, forms, and ethical guidelines that can be obtained online. (The CRE also offers some mediation documentation, as well.)

Arbitration can get a resolution in a relatively short amount of time: unless the matter is complex, the process can be completed within 90 days. If the parties have agreed to an accelerated process, then the time can be shorted to 30-60 days; with enough cooperation among the participants, arbitrations have been known to complete within as little as 14 days.

Arbitrations can be costly. Preparation of the supporting documentation as well as the legal arguments to be advanced can become expensive. Compared to the same dispute in the traditional litigation process, however, arbitration will always be the cheaper alternative.

Arbitrations must be agreed upon by the parties before the process begins. Most general contractors are insisting that arbitration clauses be included in their contracts, since their business encounters the most disputes and can be hardest hit by any conflicts.

Both state and federal law contain detailed requirements on arbitration clauses within contract documents. Since the arbitration provision effectively denies the parties their constitutional right to the courtroom process, protections are strict to insure that everyone understands exactly what they are foregoing when they sign their agreement to the arbitration option. Arbitration clauses must be in a certain size font, for example, and must contain clear explanatory language of the finality of the arbitration option.

Lawsuit

With the popularity of mediation and arbitration, are there still construction lawsuits? Of course. For some, the opportunity to have a jury trial is not something they are willing to give up. For others, the time and money involved in traditional litigation is not a significant detriment to them -- and may even provide them a strategic benefit.

In big, complex disputes, traditional litigation does offer advantages and sometimes can be the only option. A general contractor filing bankruptcy may necessitate the filing of formal litigation. Violations of law or code may require court determinations of legal liability. Suspicions of fraud may require the formalities of full discovery. If the conflict is so large and voluminous that the project has stalled indefinitely, then why not file a lawsuit?

Traditional litigation insures that witnesses will be interviewed, depositions will be taken, and documents will be gathered from all available sources. Judges will be available to oversee the process: a party hiding evidence can be compelled to release it, and an unwilling witness can be subpoenaed and compelled to testify.

An owner, for example, may find it necessary to force the testimony of a subcontractor unwilling to speak up against a general contractor to whom he is dependent upon for future work. Similarly, a contractor may need formal subpoena power in order to obtain documentation from an engineer unwilling to volunteer information detrimental to an architect with whom he does repeat business, and an architect may need legal formalities to obtain financial evidence from a third-party concerning the liquidity of a non-paying owner.

Litigation takes time, and it can be expensive. Residential disputes are usually heard by a judge, and can be faster than a commercial dispute which ordinarily involves a full jury trial. Appeals can be filed, and the appellate process can take years before a final determination is reached.

Sometimes, lawsuits admittedly are filed with the full knowledge that the expected expense in time and money invites a settlement that might not have been so readily available otherwise. Sometimes, lawsuits are the only option. When issues such as illegality or fraud are involved, inter-party resolution simply may be insufficient and the traditional legal process may be required.

For more information:

American Arbitration Association
http://www.adr.org/

AAA's National Construction Dispute Resolution Committee (CRE)
http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal89/15710.htm

State of Louisiana - Arbitration and Mediation Acts
http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=107926
(you must enter each section number, this site does not automatically scroll through the statutes)

State of Washington - Arbitration and Mediation Acts
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?Cite=7
Tags: