 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our Arizona law firm proudly serves the following areas:
Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale, Glendale, Chandler, Tempe, Peoria, Sun City, Gilbert, Surprise, Paradise Valley, Avondale, Queen Creek, Fountain Hills, Carefree, and other cities in the counties of: Maricopa, Yavapai, Coconino, Navajo, Gila, Graham & Pinal.
|
|
Recent Posts in Law Category
| May 12, 2010 |
| Is A Lawsuit The Answer? |
| Posted By Dan Durrant |
 |
If you have a problem that cannot be resolved by talking to the other side, too many people believe the only solution is filing a lawsuit. Of course, going to court is better than settling cases the way it was done in Tombstone, Arizona in Wyatt Earp's day but today there are more reasonable options to consider, such as Mediation or Arbitration.
Mediation is a method in which the parties agree upon a neutral Mediator who will listen to both sides and suggest a resolution. Generally, Mediators are lawyers who have training in settling disputes and can explain why an agreed settlement is often the best available option. Mediators do not have authority to require a settlement, they can only counsel, advise and recommend what they believe to be a workable settlement.
Arbitration is also a process in which the parties agree upon a neutral person to serve as the Arbitrator of their dispute though Arbitrators do have authority to decide the case and to enter an order that is binding on all sides. Arbitrators are typically lawyers who have training and experience in Court trials, Mediation and Arbitration.
Arbitration is like a court trial, but held in the office of the Arbitrator. The parties give sworn testimony under oath and introduce documents or other exhibits at an Arbitration hearing. After the hearing is over, the Arbitrator will review all of the evidence received at the hearing and make a decision. This decision is as binding on the parties as if it had been ordered in Court by a Judge. The advantages of Arbitration over Court trials include:
1. The decision is much faster than a Court trial because Arbitrations are frequently held soon after the matter is filed, whereas, Court trials can take one or two years to get to a hearing.
2. There is no appeal from an Arbitration Award while a Court decision can be appealed and take another year or two to be decided. If the case is overturned by the Court of Appeals, it can go back for another trial and even another appeal.
3. Although the Arbitrator has to be paid by the parties, the overall cost is generally less than Court because of the lengthier process.
4. Both parties get back to their businesses sooner as opposed to being frequently interrupted by court hearings over a long period of time. |
 |
| Continue reading "Is A Lawsuit The Answer?" » |
|
Permalink |
| |
| May 06, 2010 |
| The Constitution and the Supreme Court |
| Posted By Mark Shields |
 |
This week I had a fabulous experience speaking to a high school class and teaching them about the Constitution and the Supreme Court. They were an exceptional group -- very bright, dedicated, and quite conscientious. I was impressed that they understood the basics about the Constitution, which is more than can be said for a lot of people, including many of those who represent us on Capitol Hill.
For example, this group was quick both to point out that the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the basis of -- are you ready? -- the Declaration of Independence. That phrase does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, even though I am personally aware of at least two members -- prominent members, even -- of the United States House of Representatives who have recently quoted the Declaration of Independence incorrectly, believing it to be the Constitution.
Now, my goal here isn't to rip on Capitol Hill. The congressional approval polls over recent years covering both parties have already done that. But I believe it is tragic that we have elected people who swear an oath to uphold the Constitution when, by all appearances, they haven't ever read it.
My real point here is that I'm both relieved and encouraged by those in the next generation who have not only read the Constitution but appear to understand it far better than some of our elected officials. They understand that government is about the people and that people are the source of the government's power, not vice versa. They understand that Congress can't pass a law that tells us, the people, what we must or cannot do unless the Constitution gives Congress that specific power over that aspect of our lives.
The Constitution is the basis for all of our federal laws, and every state has its own constitution that largely mirrors the federal Constitution. If we realistically expect our federal or state laws to be effective, or if we realistically hope to elect competent representatives, the Constitution is our starting point. Reading and understanding it is, I believe, essential for every American -- not just every American lawyer (like me) or elected official.
I am very grateful for having had the opportunity to spend some quality time with a small group of high schoolers who have already learned that very important lesson. |
 |
| Continue reading "The Constitution and the Supreme Court" » |
|
Permalink |
| | |