Early Dispute Resolution

What Is EDR?

EDR stands for Early Dispute Resolution -- a process designed to resolve disputes efficiently and fairly, ideally within 30 to 60 days from the point the parties decide to engage. It borrows techniques from mediation, arbitration, and collaborative law, but it isn’t quite any of those. Instead, EDR is its own structured process, grounded in the principles of transparency, fairness, and cost-effectiveness.

Where traditional litigation often escalates conflict -- spanning months or even years and consuming significant time, energy, and money -- EDR focuses on resolving disputes before they spiral. It's about getting to the heart of the matter quickly, making principled decisions based on clear facts and risk assessments, and reaching outcomes both sides can live with.

EDR isn’t about giving up or giving in. It’s about asking a better question: How do we solve this now, intelligently and fairly, without sacrificing quality or integrity?

Who Is EDR For?

EDR is ideal for parties who are willing to engage in good faith and who want to avoid unnecessary escalation. This includes:

• Business partners with a contractual dispute

• Companies facing potential litigation from customers or employees

• Individuals in civil disputes where time and cost are significant concerns

• Parties to ongoing commercial relationships who need resolution, not revenge

• Attorneys seeking a faster, smarter way to serve their clients’ interests

EDR isn’t appropriate for every case. If one party is unwilling to disclose key information, refuses to participate meaningfully, or is more interested in punishment than resolution, EDR may not be the right fit. But where the parties are aligned on one thing -- resolving the dispute efficiently -- it can be a transformative tool.

The Five-Step EDR Process

As a certified EDR neutral, I guide parties through a clearly defined five-step process. Each step is purposeful, building toward resolution with structure and transparency. Here’s how it works:

1. Agreement to Participate

The process begins when the parties voluntarily agree to pursue EDR. This agreement is memorialized in a written participation agreement, which outlines confidentiality terms, process expectations, and mutual commitments to good faith participation.

This agreement creates the foundation of trust necessary to engage meaningfully. It also establishes the EDR neutral’s role -- not as an advocate or judge, but as a guide, evaluator, and facilitator of resolution.

2. Early Information Exchange

Next, the parties engage in a focused and proportional exchange of information. This is not full-blown litigation discovery. Instead, it’s an efficient disclosure of the key facts and documents necessary to understand the core of the dispute and evaluate risk.

The goal here is transparency, not surprise. By getting the relevant information on the table early -- without the burdens of depositions, interrogatories, or motion practice -- the parties can more accurately assess the strengths and weaknesses of their positions.

As the neutral, I help manage this step to ensure it's productive and not overly burdensome. I also ensure that each side has what they need to engage meaningfully in the next phase.

3. Legal and Factual Risk Analysis

With key facts disclosed, the next step is risk analysis. Each party, often with the help of counsel, develops a principled valuation of their case. This includes:

• Likely outcomes if litigated

• Estimated litigation costs and timeframes

• Probability of success on major issues

• Potential damage awards (or exposure)

• Business and reputational impacts

As the neutral, I may assist the parties in refining or understanding these assessments. If asked, I may even provide my own non-binding evaluation of risk based on the facts and law presented. This is one of the ways EDR differs from traditional mediation -- I play a more active role in risk analysis, helping the parties move beyond posturing into real, data-driven decision-making.

4. Option Generation and Negotiation

Armed with a clear understanding of the risks and realities, the parties then engage in structured negotiation. I facilitate this conversation with an emphasis on creativity, pragmatism, and principle. Settlement discussions are not about who can shout the loudest -- they’re about what works, and why.

At this stage, I may also offer a Mediator’s Proposal if the parties are close but not yet aligned. If asked, I can propose a settlement structure that reflects the fair midpoint of risk, value, and efficiency. The parties then accept or reject the proposal confidentially. If both accept, we have a deal.

This step often moves quickly. Because the parties have already exchanged key facts and assessed risk, they’re well-positioned to engage constructively and without delay.

5. Settlement and Closure

Once agreement is reached, I assist the parties and counsel in memorializing the resolution in clear, enforceable terms. The process ends not just with a handshake, but with a resolution that has legal and practical integrity.

Depending on the dispute, this may take the form of a contract, mutual release, or court order. In some cases, we include future dispute resolution protocols or business process improvements.

The parties walk away not only with the matter resolved, but with the time, money, and energy preserved to focus on what matters next.

How EDR Differs from Traditional Mediation

EDR builds on the strengths of mediation but differs in some important ways:

• Structure: EDR follows a defined five-step framework, whereas mediation can be more fluid.

• Timing: EDR is used early -- often before a lawsuit is filed or shortly thereafter -- while mediation is often used after litigation has matured.

• Neutral Role: In EDR, I may be more evaluative and engaged in helping parties assess risk. In traditional mediation, especially facilitative models, the neutral may not offer opinions.

• Speed: EDR is designed to reach closure in 30 to 60 days. Mediation timelines vary widely.

• Information Exchange: EDR includes a proportional exchange of documents and facts early on, while mediation may involve little to no formal information sharing beforehand.

These distinctions make EDR uniquely suited for cases where speed, cost, and preservation of relationships are high priorities.

My Role as a Certified EDR Neutral

I’ve been trained and certified in EDR by the Early Dispute Resolution Institute, and I bring to this work my full background as a trial lawyer, arbitrator, and mediator. My approach is firm but fair, structured but adaptable. I work to build trust quickly, manage the process efficiently, and help the parties stay focused on what really matters.

I believe strongly in the promise of EDR -- not as a shortcut, but as a smart, principled way to resolve conflict. In the right cases, it’s transformative. It doesn’t eliminate conflict; it channels it toward solution.

If you’re counsel for a party in conflict -- or if you’re a business leader looking for a way to resolve a matter without dragging your team through months of litigation -- I invite you to consider EDR. I’d be happy to explain the process further and help determine whether it’s the right fit for your situation.

Let’s resolve smarter. Let’s resolve early.