The IBPS approach to legal problems
There is an alternative to spending thousands of dollars fighting legal battles.
Traditional legal fights are viewed as "zero-sum" or "win-lose" propositions because most law schools only teach how to fight and defend their positions, not how to problem solve. The end result is that two people go into court and one walks out the "winner," one walks out the "loser."
Interest based problem solving approaches a legal problem from a different perspective. It is often known as "Interest-Based Problem Solving," "Best Practice or Integrative Bargaining," or "Win-Win" bargaining. No matter what you call it, interest based problem solving offers parties more flexibility than traditional positional bargaining.
Unlike traditional legal battles, where the parties begin with predetermined positions on items and issues, interest based problem solving begins with both sides first seeking to fully understand the issue or problem. Next, they identify their underlying interests and the underlying interests of the other side. Often, parties discover that their interests are similar and that both sides are trying to achieve the same goal but just taking different approaches. After identifying interests, the parties can generate options that satisfy their needs. Options are evaluated according to the parties' criteria, so the solutions work well for both sides.
Parties who use interest based problem solving have learned that negotiated outcomes tend to address their specific issues much better than decisions made by a Judge that they have no control over. Interest based problem solving is also much less expensive than fighting a long drawn out legal battle. Of course, if a party or their attorney refuses to consider interest based problem solving they can always move forward with their legal battle. However, they usually find out at the end that they did not come out any better but instead spent a lot more money in the process.