In arriving at a settlement, both parties must be open to the idea of sharing

their underlying interests. Unlike in a trial, the settlement process is not the venue
to scheme and develop tactics in order to pressure the other party to accede to
enormous and far-fetched demands. Openness should prevail during the entire
process. Although, it may be difficult for a lawyer to put his client in a
disadvantage in the course of presenting these underlying interests such as when
doing so will prove that initial offers are too exorbitant, this is only incidental to
the whole negotiation process. Parties in entering into a settlement must be open to
adjusting or losing some of their demands for the sake of finally putting the issue
to rest. Its an example of a classic give-and-take scenario which results to
contentment, if not satisfaction, on both sides. The essence of openness is not to
trick the other to give you what you want, but to make the other understand what
you need.
In the movie, Jan wanted to extort as much money as possible from the
companies, thinking that the latter would give in to their demands to avoid
negative publicity attendant to a full-blown trial. However, things did not go as he
planned. The companies did not fall in his trap and decided to go to trial. If Jan was
not that stubborn, they could have settled the case early on and avoided being
drowned in debt.
Another key to a successful dispute resolution is to view it as a problemsolving mechanism. It is not a contest where the party with the more convincing or
more preponderant evidence wins. Joint efforts should be exerted by both parties to
figure out the root problem. It is only in this way that the interests or needs of both
parties can be definitely addressed.
During these settlement processes, lawyers must be aware of the ultimate
interests of their clients. Its not all about the money or the restitution or reparation
of things lost. It may be all about strained relationships, broken promises and the
like. A party may not be really interested of the amount of damages he can rake in
but may only want a simple but sincere apology from the other party. This was one
of the things the plaintiffs in the movie wanted. The unique result of alternative
dispute resolution processes is that emotions are addressed. This may prove to be
more lasting than the mere receiving of monetary compensation. Unlike in court
processes where meaningful apologies are rare, apologies can best be found in
negotiations and mediations where both parties can easily ventilate their opinions,
views and feelings on the matter. Hence, they make the most of the settlement. It
addresses not only their physical needs but also the emotional aspect of the dispute
or conflict.
Finally, it must be born in mind that in alternative dispute resolution, the
winner does not take it all. There is no sole winner. Both parties aim to be winners
in the settlement. This goes back to an ideal give-and-take situation. The parties
must be prepared to make a compromise in order to get the best settlement that
their circumstances can offer. An ideal ADR process leaves the parties after the
conflict to a better situation and more importantly, ADR makes both sides winners.

SORAYA LAUT