Speak Up

Click here to read the full article in our digital edition.

by Debra Vey Voda-Hamilton Hamilton Law and Mediation

In my mediation practice I find that many of my clients are eager to immediately speak up, just not to the people who most need to hear what they have to say. They want to avoid direct confrontation yet fuel its fire by speaking to others outside the situation who support their point of view. It is infinitely easier to preach to the converted. Most people avoid those who need to hear what they have to say. They assume the other party will not want to listen or work out the misunderstanding, misstatement or miscommunication.

A variety of articles in recent years have discussed the AKC’s judges approval process. The myriad of opinions expressed might benefit by the use of mediation. Mediation is a process in which all interested and involved parties have the opportunity to speak up and listen. It is confidential and safe. Often the key to positive change in a process is the facilitation of a constructive conversation among interested parties. Each needs to feel heard, respected, appreciated and understood. Striking, suing, bellowing or ostrich management doesn’t work for anyone. Finding a more peaceful and satisfactory solution necessitates the involvement of all impacted parties; Judges, AKC Representatives and Exhibitors.

When I was a litigator and suggested mediation, people laughed at me. Their retort was, “The contract is strong and we will enforce it. I want to be done with the bugger.” Yes, that is one way to look at it. You will find many ready, willing and able attorneys who will take your case and your money to enforce your contract. The win at all costs mentality, which casts the adage ‘let cooler heads prevail’ aside, has destroyed long-time breeding collaborations, handling teams or valued owners.

My courtroom experience has shown that both sides would like to work out their problem without litigation, but neither wants to be the first to raise their hand and speak up. As their attorney I could not necessarily allow my clients to navigate a solution-oriented conversation. They might say something that would come back and haunt us at trial. I also stood in-between the parties because I wanted to shield my client from what I knew would be a difficult conversation. Isn’t that why they had hired me, to shield them from experiencing the warts and pimples of their own conduct that contributed to this disagreement?

To be honest, it was in my best interest too. If I didn’t facilitate an opportunity for the parties to speak to one another, I could continue to hold on to the case in preparation for litigation. That way my attorney counterpart and I could negotiate a settlement unhindered by the emotions of our clients. Isn’t that what we were being paid to do? The parties never have the opportunity to speak with each other directly; the attorneys’ hammer out the details of what we believe the clients want.

Mediators would simply hold the space for everyone to have this conversation. Who knows, in mediation they may find they endorse the current system or find another yet to be written. All this, while also protecting the confidentiality of the people who cared enough to speak up.

Mediation works for people who are divorcing, co-owners who aren’t speaking, and neighbors who are at odds over the dog’s barking, to name only a few of the venues in which it has been applied to conflicts between people involving dogs. Why not toss a mediator’s hat in the dog show ring and allow this respected and respectful process to help everyone address the judges qualifications process? Please let me know what you think at dhamilton@hamiltonlawandmediation.com

Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=46289

Posted by Alex on Apr 9 2014. Filed under Current Articles, Featured. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.