1Mitigate Risk and Gain control in disputes. Could Dispute Management be considered as inherently integral part of Compliance and Risk Management?
How a new framework for identifying risks and responding to them through an internal regulatory system with policies, codes of conducts, and structural changes is evolving with the help of global ecosystem.
2Systemic dispute resolution toolkit
Institutions like FICM are now developing customized arbitration, mediation and systemic dispute resolution toolkit for each corporation to manage disputes. How these tool-kits are helping corporations?
3Evaluating the nuances of the Coherent Corporate Dispute Management Policy
A dispute management policy must respond to the changing world, the new professional fields, the more flexible societal standards and above all it must contribute to facilitate business and the generation of profit.
4Internal Dispute Resolution Programs: A Growing Trend
The combined trends to "empower" employees as well as to resolve disputes in a less adversarial manner. How this growing trend is shaping up and influencing the success of corporations?
5The evolution from 'ad hoc' dispute resolution to 'systemic dispute management'
A self-regulated corporation is the guarantee of a coherent global dispute management strategy. Aninsightful talk around self regulated frameworks.
Should Medarbitration or mediation centered arbitration be routinely built into all dispute resolution clauses in the Company’s contracts?
Cost reduction vs risk reduction. Could the value of risk reduction (in addition to cost reduction) be more clearly understood and measured?
How all of these trends are shaping up and influencing the success of corporations?
Dispute Management an integral part of Compliance and Risk Management?
Could current legal cost centers credibly demonstrate their impact as profit centers in terms of total value adds?
To explore new ideas for dispute resolution and form collaborative networks for testing those ideas, should team members participate more actively with relevant outsiders
Should the Company follow the path with other leading corporations to support the creation of world’s institutional ecosystem that manages, administers and defines cross border dispute resolution system, devoid of any state or regional influence? Making it a truly neutral global organization.
Should in-house litigation team members be trained and empowered to negotiate with third parties to achieve clearly expressed business goals?
Should all external litigation counsel be required to have undertaken negotiation and mediation advocacy training as a condition of representing the Company and should external counsel be rated on their effectiveness in these areas?
Could some features of other companies’ case analysis tools be considered useful additions to the Company’s case management system (and where such a system does not exist, should it be created)?
Should team members be encouraged to publish short pieces that give visible expression to different aspects of the Company’s dispute resolution ethos and values?
Have the respective roles of internal and external counsel been clarified in the minds of external counsel, including who controls what, in both theory and practice?
Do team members feel fully empowered to experiment with new dispute resolution techniques (mediation, use of settlement counsel, hybrids, etc.) or does an inhibiting culture of blame or turf protection pervade the organization?
Should team members participate in outside events and learning sessions to constantly upgrade and bring changes to the way disputes are handled both locally and internationally?