In this second of a two-part interview (part one was on 2/27/07), Stephanie West Allen, JD, accomplished writer, speaker, blogger, thinker, teacher and consultant (http://westallen.typepad.com/about.html) talks about appreciative intelligence and the legal profession.

Carol: The subject of appreciative intelligence has appeared in several legal blogs. Stephanie, yesterday you talked about possible reasons that appreciative intelligence has captured the attention of the legal profession: the profession’s reputation as being the most pessimistic and AI’s potential value as a tool for change. What leads you to believe that the profession could change?

Stephanie: I have hope because many of the problems cited about the profession can be alleviated with clarity, by shining some light onto confusion and assumptions. Too often cases proceed without anyone stopping to say, "What are we doing here?" and "Why?"

For example, I have been a mediator for many years. In the model that I use (developed by the Center for Mediation in Law, http://www.mediationinlaw.org ), one of the first phases of the mediation is learning the reason the parties have chosen to mediate their dispute. This often takes a long time and requires some reframing. For example, if they say they want to avoid court or save money, we need to turn that around to something positive, such as "We want to honor our past relationship" or maybe "We need to work this out for the sake of others involved about whom we care." Find not what they don't want but what they do want. This step is important because that overarching purpose will get them over and around the times of high conflict or unpleasant interactions; saving money typically will not carry them through to the other side when things get rough.

In the traditional practice of law, not alternative dispute resolution, we also can clarify matters: what's our purpose here and, when possible and appropriate, reframe to a more positive one. A quest for clarity could be a wonderful service by the profession for its clients. And, of course, AI could be helpful here.

Another related challenge to the profession is assumptions. You will see law students acting on assumptions about how a lawyer should behave and think. These assumptions may have come from television or a book  or their parent. When these assumptions are wrong or rigid, trouble is
in the offing for all (clients, opposing counsel, the lawyer him- or herself) when the student begins to practice law. Surfacing the assumptions and checking them with reality, no matter how long a lawyer has been practicing, would answer this call for clarity.

Lawyers also make assumptions about what clients want and need, and many problems would be solved if they had what is called by Sandler Sales an "upfront contract." I don't mean the retainer agreement but an operating manual for the relationship, one that is created by both attorney and client. Mismatched assumptions can block the effective progress of any case, not to mention irritate, even enrage, all concerned. Just be sure everyone knows the answers to "What are we
doing here?" and "How?"

I know that lack of acknowledged purpose and mismatched assumptions create havoc in more arenas than just the legal profession. One of the goals we have for our mediations is that, when parties leave, they know better how to handle any conflict they encounter in the future; they
have learned a skill and an awareness. Wouldn't it be great if most people were better off after they had interaction with the legal profession? The light of clarity can move us in that direction.
Pollyanna-ish, I know, but also possible.

Carol: Thanks for sharing your insights and your time, Stephanie. I look forward to the continuing conversation, both online and off, that will come from your ideas.