Development industry contributors tend to hunt out probably the most environment friendly means of resolving their disputes.1 Minimal revenue margins, harsh competitors and overburdened work schedules make it paramount for building law for ordinary people contractors, design professionals, and owners alike to resolve disputes in a well timed and cost-efficient method before working relationships are negatively impacted. Certainly, these concerns have been a major driving force behind the construction industry’s widespread use of alternative types of dispute resolution.2
The industry’s current movement towards newer forms of ADR, designed to remove attorneys from the dispute decision process as much as attainable to facilitate fast and inexpensive settlements, is pushed at the least partially by a notion in the development industry that lawyers, particularly of their capacity as litigators, only get in the way in which of efficient settlement. The use of partnering agreements, dispute resolutions boards, and mediation has develop into routine in the industry.3 Wary of being the proverbial fish between two cats4, construction industry individuals have adopted ADR mechanisms that potentially minimize the lawyer’s function, and, insofar as it is doable, maintain the dispute in the hands of the concerned parties with less reliance on outside counsel.5
Even with this movement toward utilizing ADR processes to resolve disputes, many in the construction industry nonetheless see construction attorneys as more of the problem than anything else. Certainly many consider that attorneys, trained more in the art of litigation than that of development, have pushed dispute decision mechanisms towards formalistic processes that are not all the time essentially the most environment friendly or simplest technique of resolving conflicts. For instance, a disgruntled skilled engineer just lately wrote:
By their reluctant embrace of that legal professional-pushed process over the years, architects and engineers have unwittingly transferred their traditional management of the development process to their attorneys—a lot so that, at the moment, they dare not make a move without them.6
The priority is not so much with the at present used processes – mediation, dispute decision boards, and partnering agreements are broadly used across the industry with a lot success.7 Quite, some construction business participants have turn into disenchanted with the authorized career’s capability to guide a dispute towards environment friendly settlement. Instead of desired “downside-solvers,” building attorneys are seen by some as “revenue eaters” or “pointless overhead” as legal charges eat up steadily reducing revenue margins industry-wide.