What is “structured negotiations”?

Catching flies with honey is not the default strategy most attorneys use to resolve disputes. But Lainey Feingold and Linda Dardarian, both longtime California advocacy lawyers, have worked out a method that avoids conflict, costly litigation and protracted time in court—while still yielding beneficial results for their clients.

Structured negotiations differ from mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution because typically no third party is involved. Instead, both sides collaborate closely as a team to solve a problem.

“Here’s an alternative method for resolving a claim that has its own structure,” Feingold says. “It doesn’t have civil procedure, but it has a structure that’s serious.”

The process often begins when a deficiency is spotted in some mainstream application—often technical in nature—that renders it inaccessible or cumbersome for some population of users. A demand letter is then sent to decision-makers at the sponsoring corporation or other organization in lieu of a complaint.

“It’s a very tricky letter to write because you want people to engage without getting too defensive,” says Feingold, noting that patience is essential. It takes time, she says, to get buy-in on the process; once that happens, an alliance is formed and both sides tackle the issue together.

“With a win-win solution, it would be better for everybody,” Dardarian says, adding: “It would take a noncontentious approach to come up with something really cutting-edge.”1

She was amazed by the level of sensitive information available to her side once collaboration began. The lawyers, and representatives from the blind community, participated at a technology lab at a major bank, where they were active in the development process for the new technology.

“For a bank to welcome us—the side that in litigation would be their adversary—into that environment, it just really showed the level of trust,” she recalls. “These are the types of things that would never happen in litigation.”

“structured negotiations” focused on a tangible outcome, not monetary relief.

Print Page