PRIVATE JUSTICE

We do it for the PJ!

Those who have been our parties, advocates, attorneys or services beneficiaries (SBs) often note with approval our services tag line. However, “We engineer the just resolution of complex disputes” is the answer to the question of what we do. “Private Justice” is the answer to the question of why we do it.

We will get to the definition of Private Justice in a moment. But first, a discussion of the how. ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) is how we do what we do. It is a tool and nothing more. It is merely an instrument that we use to achieve an objective for our service beneficiaries. It can come in as many forms as the imagination can conjure. Here is a partial list: facilitation, conciliation, mediation, early neutral evaluation, private arbitration, court annexed mediation, court annexed arbitration, court annexed settlement conferences, non-binding arbitration, mediation-arbitration (med-arb), arbitration-mediation (arb-med), neutral fact finding panels, baseball arbitrations, referees, receivers, special masters and on and on and on.  Truly the list is endless. ADR simply means a way of resolving disputes in a manner other than through (i.e. as an alternative to) the use of the formal mechanisms of the public courts.

The Holmes Law Firm has employed all manners of ADR processes and procedures on thousands of occasions to aid our service beneficiaries in the resolution of their disputes. Our expertise in this regard is second to none in the world. However, these processes and procedures only describe how we do what we do. We are not slave to them. We encourage our SBs not to be either. ADR are merely tools to get a job done. If the tool works, great. If it does not, we grab another tool and continue to do so until resolution is achieved. Resolution is the objective but not just any resolution. The resolutions we strive for are the just resolutions. These are resolutions that resolve a dispute in a manner that is fair and just for all sides. The quest for the just resolution is our “ratio existere”. We exist to provide parties with a mechanism for the private, self directed, impartial and just resolution of their disputes. We exist to provide parties with a route to Private Justice.

What is PRIVATE JUSTICE? Private Justice is a term that is occasionally used but rarely defined. The feeble attempts at doing so seem to have one thing in common: ultimately they define private justice as a synonym for ADR. Not by us.  We define Private Justice in 3 different ways depending on the context:

1. A dispute impartially, fairly and properly resolved through the use of ADR processes and procedures in accord with law, equity and contract and in accordance with cultural, community and industry or subject matter standards.
2. The utilization of ADR processes and procedures to impartially, fairly and justly resolve disputes between and among parties in accordance with their original contractual intent.
3. An individual neutral engaged in the profession of privately and justly resolving disputes via the application of ADR processes and procedures

Definition 1 is used to define the thing that Private Justice is. Definition 2 is used to define and describe the way we administer and apply our ADR processes and procedures to obtain Private Justice as defined in definition 1. Definition 3 is used to describe the neutral who applies ADR in the pursuit of Private Justice.

Reginald A. Holmes, the Chairman of the Holmes Law Firm, encapsulates these three definitions with the following phrase:

“Private Justice is a 4 pillared Principal powered by a 5 fingered Process in the hands of a 3 headed Arbiter.”

To our knowledge no one else defines Private Justice as we do. For that we do not apologize. We are at a pivotal time for ADR. It is time when ADR is under attack for having mis-sold its. Rather than selling the quality and superiority of ADR relative to court processes, many of us who have been bequeathed with leadership of the ADR community sold the potential for cost savings above all other values as the primary rationale for choosing ADR as an alternative to the courts. This is unfortunate and misleading since the real benefit of ADR is that it is the party’s process and concerns itself exclusively with what is best for the parties and not what is best for the courts, unrelated 3rd parties or society as a whole. (Of course ADR can be less costly than court processes if the parties working in conjunction with neutrals choose to make it so. But sometimes, the lowest cost alternative is not the best alternative and can cost far more in the long run, in terms of rights, defenses and rightful or unwarranted damages awarded or lost.)
The real benefit of ADR is that it is a higher quality alternative to the courts, and not just a lower cost alternative to the courts (although surely it can often be that as well).
With ADR, the parties select their judge (or justice), their process, their procedures, their venue and their law. This is the overarching advantage of ADR, and this advantage has been grossly undersold by ADR’s putative leaders and advocates. Simplistic and shrill claims and demands for cost savings, coupled with the thinly veiled attempts to force unwilling employees, consumers and small businesses into AD, is what has created a perceived climate of crisis in ADR. These “leaders” have sold the business community on a bill of goods on costs that could not be consistently delivered. Rather than recognizing and correcting the error, they now seek to force all of ADR into a square peg into which most cases cannot and should not fit. They are aided and abetted by too many politicized, poorly managed and underfunded courts looking to off load cases in any way they can. Corporations are looking to save a buck any way they can, even when it hurts their companies in the final outcome, and business-oriented neutrals are looking to make a buck any way they can, even when it hurts their long-term interest. This conduct is inequitable, shameful and undermines the promise of ADR. And, of course, it will not be allowed to succeed. We will not permit the courts to close the court house door to those who wish to avail themselves of the right to have their grievances heard in public, before sworn judges, duty-bound to follow the law of the land. We will not permit ADR to be misused by those who would force the unwilling into what should be a knowing, voluntary and consented to process. We will not permit neutrals that come into the field solely for money, ego, power, vanity, escape from the practice of law or for “something to do” after a stint on the bench to sully this field. They may do it for those purposes; we do it for the PJ. Our mission is to make the world safe for Private Justice.

Since its inception, The Holmes Law Firm (HLF) has dedicated itself to the utilization of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes and procedures to fairly, impartially and justly resolve complex disputes between and among parties in accordance with their original contractual intent.  The delivery of these ADR services is our calling, and it amounts to nothing less than the provisioning of PRIVATE JUSTICE (PJ) to our service beneficiaries. We believe that Private Justice is the ultimate object and must become the secured future of ADR. To facilitate these ends and promote the HLF PJ brand of ADR, the firm is encouraging scholarship, understanding and acceptance of Private Justice as the ultimate object of ADR.

The Holmes Firm and Reginald A. Holmes will introduce the PRIVATE JUSTICE concept as the latest innovation in the advance of the practice and art of ADR.  As an adjunct to this initiative the firm is sponsoring the creation of the Private Justice Prize (PJP) for American and international law students for competitive writing excellence on topics relating to the use of ADR in provisioning justice in commercial, consumer, employment or international disputes. The first PJP will be awarded in 2011.