Litigation-I Win, You Lose vs. Mediation-Win/Win

Image
  Litigation is a zero-sum game.  It destroys relationships and fosters enmity between the parties.  Parties rarely walk away happy.  Even if they win, the expense of litigation is enormous, and collecting on judgments is difficult. Disputes ultimately resolve, but the focus on winning at any cost can lead to prolonged legal battles.  Living with a lawsuit causes ongoing stress, which can distract you from your business and even have an effect on your health. In a courtroom, the final decision lies with a judge or jury who may not fully grasp the complexities of the case. Parties relinquish control over the outcome, potentially leaving them dissatisfied with the final judgment. Mediation has the opposite effect.   Rather than polarizing people, it enables the parties to attack the issues and not each other.     The process promotes open communication, collaboration and problem-solving, which enables parties to actively participate in crafting ...

Why Do Non-Public CIRs Mean LEEDigation?

From Chris Cheatham's Green Building Law Update

If there was a LEEDigation doomsday clock, I would move it up about 5 minutes towards midnight based on the following decision by the USGBC.*

Real Life LEED recently reported that the USGBC has decreed that, starting June 26, 2009, Credit Interpretation Requests (CIRs) will no longer be applicable to all projects:

"Effective June 26, 2009, credit interpretation requests (CIRs) submitted by any registered project will no longer be vetted by USGBC or its LEED Technical Advisory Groups. As a result, CIR rulings will now be applicable only to the project that submitted them. For LEED version 2 projects, rulings on CIRs submitted prior to June 26, 2009, will be honored until they are retired by USGBC or incorporated into general USGBC-issued project guidance, such as through errata or addenda."

All you non-practitioners out there may be wondering what the heck a CIR is and why this matters. The best way for me to explain a CIR is to compare it to case law.

When you are talking to a client that is thinking about a lawsuit, one step you may undertake is reading up on case law. You read case law to find a factually analogous situation to determine if your client has a good chance of winning.

CIRs function the same way as case law. To achieve LEED certification, a project must achieve a certain number of credits. But the requirements for each credit are often open to interpretation. To resolve this uncertainty, a technical advisory board evaluates each CIR to determine whether or not a credit should be granted. Historically, USGBC has published these credit interpretations to inform other builders and designers in future projects. The first comment after the Real Life LEED post really hits at the importance of CIRs:

Wonder why they decided to do this, public CIRs help project teams immensely. They give good information on how the USGBC look at and interpret credits so that we could submit proper documentation or know what is and isn't acceptable strategies to meet the credits. I don't think LEED is in the stage where it is clear enough to not be interpreted several different ways.

You probably already see why LEEDigation is more likely without public CIRs. Without public CIRs, architects, engineers and contractors are going to have more trouble interpreting credits and determining strategies that will successfully achieve a LEED credit. As a result, the likelihood that projects will fail to achieve LEED certification increases dramatically. As we've discussed, failure to achieve promised LEED certification leads toLEEDigation.

On Monday, we will look at why the USGBC had to do away with public CIRs.

But what do you think about this change?

*To be clear, the USGBC had to make this business decision. My post on Monday will go into more detail as to why this decision was necessary

Popular posts from this blog

Eligibility Requirements for the LEED Green Associate Exam from Green Building Education and Training

What are the eligibility requirements for the LEED Green Associate exam? http://www.green-buildings.com/content/78626-what-are-eligibility-requirements-leed-green-associate-exam After March 31st, 2009, candidates for the LEED Green Associate (GA) credentials must fulfill eligibility requirements. LEED Green Associate candidates are required to do ONE (1) of the following: Option 1: You must be (or have previously been) employed in a sustainable field of work This is perhaps one of the more nebulous requirements posed by the GBCI, because no definition of a "sustainable field of work" is given. The USGBC does state that the company needs to "relate to environmentalism or the green building industry". If you are in any doubt that your profession would qualify, contact the GBCI at gbci.org or by calling 1-800-795-1746. Option 2: You must be (or have been) involved in a LEED Certification Project To prove eligibility by way of LEED project involvement, you must have bee...
Read more

When the Homeowner is a Bully

I've seen a new trend in contractor disputes lately, and it isn't pretty.  Some homeowners are making unreasonable demands on contractors, and bullying them into doing work without getting paid.  They unreasonably withhold payments, or impose penalties for delays that they cause.  They expect contractors to do all kinds of extra work without being paid or changing the completion date. I have had a series of these recently.  What is a contractor to do? When first meeting with a homeowner, trust your instincts.  If you are sensing red flags, do not take the job. Never let the work get ahead of the money.  If there is a change order, make sure that the payment is contemporaneous with the work. Make sure that all change orders are in writing and reflect any change in the contract price and date of substantial completion. Include a provision in your contract that entitles you to get attorney's fees if you have to go after a client for payment. Make sure t...
Read more

Should a Contractor Have the Homeowner Test for Lead?

I would like to learn more about the advisability of lead testing.  Homeowners might not want their homes tested for lead, because it becomes public record, and may interfere with the sale of a home or the ability to obtain a mortgage or homeowners insurance.  In addition, I strongly advise contractors not to do the testing themselves.  Let the homeowner pay an independent company to do it.  Otherwise if the GC brings a claim against a lead testing company for a false negative, the company might state that the GC did not use the test kit properly.  If the homeowner does have the house tested, consider refusing to do the work unless the homeowner has lead abatement work done.
Read more