This style of communication involves mutual influence and can be defined as a distinctive and transactional form of communication between individuals, usually with the purpose of maintaining relationships (Beebe, Beebe & Redmond 2014). Productive interpersonal communication is necessary for mutual understanding and satisfaction to be achieved between lawyers and their clients. Feedback is a communication skill, used as a response to a message, which encompasses written, spoken and unspoken communication elements, to which people assign meaning. Without this skill, communication becomes a struggle, reducing its effectiveness, which, can have devastating consequences for the relationship between lawyers and clients, and the progression of the case. Feedback is implemented for the purpose of either gaining additional information, or as a confirmation that a message has been received correctly (Beebe, Beebe & Redmond 2014).
Facts and Opinions on the Estate of Saueressig v. Goff. Proc 5810-29 ABSTRACT: This paper briefs the facts on the popular case The Estate of Saueressig v. Goff. It will study the Probate court’s decision along with both the Appellate and Supreme court’s decision and why they came to their conclusions. It will also express the author’s opinion of the case and point out many contradictory opinions within the law system and even among some of California Supreme Court Justices. The purpose of this paper is to induce thought of the legal system.
The other is a non-traditional procedure known as Alternative Dispute Resolutions (ADR) and it is now currently being used more frequently than the traditional method as a way to reach an agreement in a dispute. The author will briefly discuss the similarities and differences of traditional litigation vs. non-traditional forms of ADR. Traditional litigation requires that a grievance be filed with the court and therefore the plaintiff has a certain amount of time to submit an objection to these allegations. What follows next is a pre-trial, then a trial. The trail allows each opposing party is allowed to state or present their side of the case.
[2] Indeed, this seemingly plainly written text is much more than just a narrative piece of work due to its inherent influence at the sentencing stage. There exists an inherent tension between the two schools of thoughts: one view among the legal academy is that such statements are no more than some maneuver to elongate criminals’ sentences or even encourage votes for death penalty in some extreme cases by evoking unnecessary emotionalism, while some argue that they undeniably convey essential information to sentencing judges and possess other advantageous effects. A literary analysis of a victim impact statement thus becomes essential – exploring the camouflaged narrative techniques as employed to explain their role in court. In this essay, I shall discuss the narrative dimension of victim impact statements in light of Booth v Maryland, followed by an analysis of whether the court should admit such statements in the sentencing phase of cases. II.
ALL’S FAIR IN LOVE AND LAW: AN ANALYSIS OF THE COMMON INTENTION CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ANDREW DYSON * The article analyses the application of the common intention constructive trust to disputes involving the family home, as the law stands after Stack v. Dowden and the numerous recent cases interpreting that decision. It is suggested that instances of actual unfairness are rarer than often thought, because of the judiciary’s willingness to manipulate the formal rules of the trust in order to avoid injustice. Criticism should instead be focused on the hidden costs of allowing fairness to trump formality: a hole in the integrity of the law, and the spiralling costs of litigation which flow from the complexity of the doctrine. It is concluded that a statutory scheme is the only way forward for the law of cohabitation. I.
Discovery can use dispositions or subpoena of documents that may be believed to be relevant to the lawsuit. When one has a litigation, that person will not know the outcome until the judge or the jury decides. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), are growing more and more popular as methods to resolve some of the shortcomings a litigation is facing. The alternative dispute resolutions include different forms of nontraditional litigation, such as negotiation, mediation, arbitration, conciliation, and mini-trial. Arbitration and meditation are the most common forms of alternative dispute resolutions.
Traditional and Nontraditional Litigation Litigation is a problem every organization handles. Litigation, or judicial dispute resolution, is “the process of bringing, maintaining, and defending a lawsuit” (Cheeseman, 2010, p. 35). An organization can follow traditional litigation procedures or it can choose nontraditional litigation, otherwise known as alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Cheeseman (2010) states, “[Traditional] litigation is a difficult, time-consuming, and costly process that must comply with complex procedural rules” (p. 35). ADR is a quicker, easier, and less expensive way to solve disputes, more often used for contractual and commercial disputes.
Traditional litigation system A traditional litigation system refers to dispute resolution through utilizing a civil court system. This system has a basis on an adversarial justice system whereby attorneys have an obligation of representing their clients within the bound laws and canons of professional responsibility. The court's proceedings right from an action's commencement to the trial inclusion are governed by civil procedures and detailed rules which are formal. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is a process whereby parties involved in a dispute decide to resolve their own disputes without going to court. The main reason behind this form of dispute resolution is to save on court expenses as it is considered cheaper compared to traditional litigation systems (What is the meaning of Traditional litigation system n.d).
Alternative Dispute Resolution Focus on Mediation Richard. K. Pope MGT 5193.E1 Negotiation Skills for Managers Amberton University Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is the process and technics for resolving disputes outside of the judicial process (formal litigation or court system). Many of the courts in the United States in order to help alleviate overcrowding and backlogs are requiring parties to use some form of ADR to try and resolve their issues before allowing their case to be heard. There are several forms of ADR, mediation, arbitration negotiation and collaborative law, most often mediation is the preferred method. Mediation is by far the most accepted method in alternative dispute resolution.
Still, this only applies in certain circumstances, and the majority of lay people will contact Solicitors rather than Barristers. Solicitors must be able to create good working relationships with the full spectrum of personalities that may become their clients, explaining points of law, and legal process, in a clear accessible manner. Each person is different and solicitors need to foster good interaction so that a client understands the options present and is able to give sensible instruction. Of paramount importance to a Barrister, however, is advocacy, and courtroom advocacy in particular. They must excel at presenting legal arguments in a persuasive manner, to attract the support of judges and juries.