Office Location: Philadelphia,
PA
Email: pkingsley@stradley.com
Website: https://www.stradley.com/professionals/k/kingsley-patrick-r
Law School: University of Pittsburgh School of Law (J.D.,
magna cum laude, 1991)
Types of ADR services offered:
Mediation, arbitration, neutral evaluation
Affiliated ADR organizations:
AAA, CPR, NADN, ACCTM, FINRA
Geographic area served: Philadelphia, New York, Washington, D.C., Wilmington
Q: Describe the path you took to becoming an ADR neutral.
A: My practice over the last 32 years of construction litigation has focused on the representation of sureties. Consequently, even the matters I handle as an advocate usually involve multiple parties with competing and conflicting interests. I have grown extremely comfortable being directly in the middle of disputes involving owners, general contractors, sub-contractors, vendors, design professionals, and sureties. My role, even as an advocate, is frequently to broker disputes that result in successful conflict resolution and efficient project completion. Becoming an ADR neutral, therefore, was just the natural progression of my career.
Q: Mediators are oftentimes described as “facilitative,” “evaluative,” or “transformative.” Do you have a style?
A: My mediation approach depends on the nature of the case and the personalities of the parties involved. That said, I typically begin with the so-called “facilitative” approach. I have found that a well-run joint session is often an opportunity for the parties to see that there is a legitimate alternative perspective to the controversy. I encourage the parties to identify the real interests that underlie the formal positions they have taken and can also be used to explore options for resolution of the dispute that might not otherwise be available in traditional litigation. Often, this style of mediation is sufficient, especially where the parties are all motivated to resolve the dispute. However, if this approach can’t quite bring the parties together, I will then shift to a more “evaluative” approach. As the only objective person involved, I find it is sometimes helpful to challenge the parties’ perspectives on the merits of their positions. The goal of this evaluative approach is not to convince any particular party that they are wrong, but simply for each party to understand that they might not be as right as they thought they were at the outset of the process. This usually happens later in the process when the parties are close to resolution but need a nudge get them to close the deal. I have found that patience and perseverance pay off. As long as the parties are participating in good faith, I will not give up.
Q: Do you have any practices that you find make you particularly effective as a mediator?
A: I have found that a frank but professional discussion regarding the issues during an opening session is extremely helpful. Some mediators shy away from this practice because it invites conflict into the process. However, I have found that a good mediator can ensure that the discussion does not stray too far away from a factual and legal discussion that should not exacerbate the conflict that brought the parties to mediation in the first place. Often, the opening session is the first opportunity that a party has had to hear the opposing party’s presentation unfiltered by their own counsel. Parties get to hear how the arguments “ring out” when they are presented aloud.
Q: What measures do you take as an arbitrator to ensure arbitration is less costly and more efficient to litigation?
A: From the start of the arbitration, I assess the complexity of the controversy, the amount of the dispute, and the needs of the parties. Then, with input from the parties, I tailor the discovery to the case to ensure that both parties are prepared on the first day of the hearing but neither party has wasted time and effort on unnecessary discovery. Prior to the hearing itself, I will explore with the parties approaches to streamline the presentation of evidence including, for example, agreed-to time limits on testimony. In a recent arbitration, I allowed the parties to present direct examination by way of written declaration.
Q: How have advances in technology influenced the arbitration process?
A: Technology has now allowed the arbitration process to be even more efficient. Voluminous documents can be presented to the Panel during the hearing electronically, avoiding the need for binders full of exhibits that may or may not get used. Written closing statements can now be hyperlinked to cited documents and transcripts, making the job of reviewing closing arguments and deliberating that much more efficient. Of course, the pandemic demonstrated that an entire hearing can be conducted remotely. Over the last two years, I have participated in eight trials that were conducted remotely using Zoom. In two of these I was the advocate and in four of them, I was an arbitrator. Although I am now happy to participate in live, in-person arbitrations, I also have the experience to conduct remote hearings.
No comments:
Post a Comment