How to use dispute resolution techniques

Listen to this article

For years, attorneys have embraced the professional possibilities of dispute resolution.

But it’s less likely they’ve considered employing those same techniques at home.

For attorney and mediator Eva Soeka, the possibilities of trying are infinite, however.

“From my experience, both personally and through my students, people are amazed how this has changed their relationships with their teenagers or co-workers, or their spouse, or their adult parents,” said Soeka, director of the Marquette University Graduate Program in Dispute Resolution and founder and director of the school’s Center for Dispute Resolution Education. “It really is amazing when you sit down and have open-ended questions and a problem-solving attitude how much people open up and how you can find a much better resolution.”

Still, for many attorneys, it’s a difficult transition.

“Lawyers typically are educated to identify facts in narrow issues,” she said. “To do that, you usually have to ask very pointed questions. And, if you’ve had a legal education, you think that’s the way to solve a problem. You do it very naturally.

“But I think lawyers take it very for granted, because of their education, that often, for the listener, that can come off as too pointed and too direct, almost an interrogation.”

It’s a common problem, said Linda Albert, manager of the State Bar’s Wisconsin Lawyers Assistance Program.

“Attorneys do talk about how sometimes it’s hard to switch gears,” she said, “from having the role and responsibility of vigorously defending your client and winning the case, then you go home and have a conflict and your vigorously defend yourself to win the argument. It’s natural.”

Changing tactics often starts with embracing some of the same principles attorneys might use professionally, particularly if they’re trained in dispute resolution.

Active listening can be a good place to start.

“Give your partner the opportunity to share their views and their points and their goals,” Albert said. “And stay present in that conversation. Don’t sit and think about your retort or reply to win your argument.”

Remember to keep your eyes on the future, Soeka said.

“If you think about it, lawyers are past- oriented; they’re looking for evidence in past facts,” she said. “In dispute resolution, we look at future resolutions. We’re not looking at the past to establish evidence.”

Being aware of that tendency is the first step toward changing, she said.

“If you are a lawyer, you need to be aware of the training that you’ve had and realize that you may be transferring that to an interpersonal relationship,” Soeka said, “where it might not be as successful as in your professional life.”

That idea of self-awareness led to an awakening for attorney Andrea Gage, who studied with Soeka while getting her master’s degree in dispute resolution.

“I’m from a family of lawyers, so I grew up being encouraged to be direct, to debate,” said Gage, spokesman for the State Bar of Wisconsin.

But dispute resolution training helped her work through things more effectively.

“Understanding what evokes responses in me is going to help me when I’m dealing with a family member.” she said. “Understanding the active listening portion of it and looking for certain things in people’s speech is going to help. Understanding now that, if people repeat themselves, it’s because they don’t feel validated; that has just been invaluable.”

Many attorneys report improvements at work, as well.

“I think by acknowledging that there’s a difference in how you approach disputes professionally and personally, you can actually become a better lawyer,” Soeka said. “And that’s something I hear from the students in the courses I teach. They say, ‘I can be a better advocate because I understand how to do those things differently.’ So, it improves your personal life but it can also improve your professional life.”

It’s something Gage has seen for herself.

“When you talk about dispute resolution and the adversarial system, they can work in tandem,” she said. “… You may still end up going to court, but it will inform how you do that.”