Construction business individuals tend to seek out essentially the most efficient means of resolving their disputes.1 Minimal revenue margins, harsh competition and overburdened work schedules make it paramount for construction contractors, design professionals, and owners alike to resolve disputes in a timely and price-efficient manner before working relationships are negatively impacted. Certainly, these concerns have been a major driving drive behind the development business’s widespread use of different types of dispute resolution.2
The trade’s latest movement towards newer types of ADR, designed to remove attorneys from the dispute decision process as a lot as doable to facilitate fast and cheap settlements, is pushed no less than partially by a notion in the construction business that lawyers, particularly of their capability as litigators, solely get in the way in which of efficient settlement. The usage of partnering agreements, dispute resolutions boards, and mediation has change into routine in the industry.3 Wary of being the proverbial fish between cats4, development trade participants have adopted ADR mechanisms that probably decrease the lawyer’s position, and, insofar as it is possible, hold the dispute in the palms of the concerned events with less reliance on outside counsel.5
Even with this movement toward utilizing ADR processes to resolve disputes, many within the construction business still see building law for ordinary people attorneys as more of the issue than anything else. Indeed many consider that lawyers, trained more in the art of litigation than that of building, have driven dispute resolution mechanisms towards formalistic processes that aren’t always probably the most environment friendly or best means of resolving conflicts. For instance, a disgruntled professional engineer just lately wrote:
By their reluctant embrace of that legal professional-pushed process over time, architects and engineers have unwittingly transferred their traditional management of the construction process to their attorneys—so much in order that, at present, they dare not make a move without them.6
The concern isn’t so much with the presently used processes – mediation, dispute resolution boards, and partnering agreements are extensively used throughout the trade with a lot success.7 Slightly, some development business individuals have grow to be disenchanted with the authorized career’s capacity to guide a dispute towards efficient settlement. Instead of desired “drawback-solvers,” construction attorneys are viewed by some as “profit eaters” or “pointless overhead” as legal charges eat up steadily reducing profit margins business-wide.