The History of JAMS: an Interview with JAMS General Counsel Jay Welsh

The International Institute of Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) is one of the premiere mediation organizations in the world.  Though I'm a neutral on CPR's insurance coverage ADR panel, even I cannot access all of the site's content because I'm not also a member.  

There are, however, some CPR resources freely available to the public that I've only recently stumbled over, including a great set of podcast interviews conducted by Michael McIlwrath, Senior Counsel, Litigation for GE Infrastructure - Oil & Gas. As CPR notes:

Michael is based at his company's headquarters in Florence, Italy. He represents his division in disputes world-wide, including work in negotiations, mediation, and arbitration, and is a long-time member of the CPR Institute and its European Advisory Committee.

One of those interviews is with JAMS General Counsel, Jay Welsh, who talks here in Part I about JAMS' history, structure and method of operation.

Part II tomorrow.


Trackbacks (1) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.negotiationlawblog.com/admin/trackback/69359
Settle It Now Negotiation Blog - April 26, 2008 7:27 PM
The provocative comment we're following is Jay Welsh's remark that to settle most cases the Plaintiff has to accept a lot less than he wanted to recover and the defendant has to pay a lot more than he ever imagined...
Comments (3) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
michael webster - April 25, 2008 7:45 PM

I viewed this. Jay said that in a mediation the plaintiff has to settle for far less than they thought and the the defendant has to pay far more than they ever thought.

So this would be the lose/lose theory of mediation?

Vickie - April 25, 2008 10:23 PM

jay uses the phrase lose-lose. Certainly there are "pure" money cases where the parties are seeking case valuation. I recently mediated a big dollar case where the GC had to return to the board for greater authority than anyone on his side would have imaginged paying due to "at the table" reality testing and case valuation. Sometimes the most valuable service the mediator can perform is to break through confirmation and other biases that have interfered with case analysis and caused impasse.

Michael Webster - April 26, 2008 4:59 PM

Vickie;

Isn't this a very important point, different from the usual integrative/distributive talk?

When the issues have been crystalized into legal ones so well, you are in a lose/lose situation.

The manager's dilemma then becomes counsel's dilemma: how do I manage to convince my client to lose more than I ever predicted and still maintain my own credibility.

Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.