designing + (dis)assembling disputes: an ethnography of disputes & lawyers in the construction industry

The UK construction industry is notorious for the sheer amount of disputes which are likely to arise on each building and engineering project. Despite numerous creative attempts at “dispute avoidance” and “dispute resolution”, this industry is still plagued with these costly disputes. Whilst both academic literature and professional practices have investigated the causes of disputes and the mechanisms for avoidance/resolution of these disputes, neither has studied in any detail the nature of the construction disputes and why they develop as they do once a construction lawyer is engaged. Accordingly, this research explores the question of what influences the outcome of a construction dispute and to what extent do construction lawyers control or direct this outcome? The research approach was ethnographic. Fieldwork took place at a leading construction law firm in London over 18 months. The primary focus was participant observation in all of the firm’s activities. In addition, a database was compiled from the firm’s files and archives, thus providing information for quantitative analysis. The basis of the theoretical framework, and indeed the research method, was the Actor‐Network Theory (ANT). As such, this research viewed a dispute as a set of associations – an entity which takes form and acquires its attributes as a result of its relations with other entities. This viewpoint is aligned with relational contract theories, which in turn provides a unified platform for exploring the disputes. The research investigated the entities and events which appeared to influence the dispute’s identity, shape and outcome. With regard to a dispute’s trajectory, the research took as its starting point that a dispute follows the transformation of “naming, blaming, claiming…”, as identified by Felstiner, Abel and Sarat in 1980. The research found that construction disputes generally materialise and develop prior to any one of the parties approaching a lawyer. Once the lawyer is engaged, we see the reverse of the trajectory “naming, blaming, claiming…” this being: “claiming, blaming, naming…” The lawyers’ role is to identify or name (or rename) the dispute in the best possible light for their client in order to achieve the desired outcome – the development of which is akin to the design process. The transformation of a dispute and the reverse trajectory is by no means linear, but rather, iterative and spatial as it requires alliances, dependencies and contingencies to assemble and take the shape it does. The research concludes that construction disputes are rarely ever completely “resolved” as such. Whilst an independent third party may hand down a judgment, or the parties may reach a settlement agreement, this state is only temporal. Some construction disputes dissipate whist others reach a state of hibernation for a period of time only to pick up momentum and energy some years later. Accordingly, this research suggests that the concept of “dispute resolution” does not exist in the UK construction industry. The ultimate goal should be for parties to reach this ultimate and perpetual state of equilibrium as quickly and as cost effectively as possible: “dispute dissolution”, the slowing down of the dispute’s momentum. Rather than focusing on the design and assemblage of the dispute, the lawyers’ role therein is, or should be, to assist with the “disassembling” of the dispute.

Making way for change at the Bar: The practical implications of the new Bar Standards Board Handbook

The Legal Services Act 2007 caused a need to change professional conduct rules for lawyers in England and Wales. The Bar Standards Board Handbook brings substantial changes to the way barristers are regulated. Changes include litigation rights, reporting of professional misconduct, an increased focus on chambers, and expansion to include employees of chambers and barristers without practicing certificates (unregistered or non-practicing barristers). The approach to enforcement and supervision moves to include elements of outcome focused, principle based and risk based approaches. These changes have the potential to change the practice of different groups of barristers and the dynamics between them.

Diversity and Inclusion As the Key to Innovating Talent Management in Law Firms?

In this chapter we argue that there is a need to reconceptualise what we mean by talent in the legal profession beyond a view that the most valuable people are those who have the highest fee-earning potential or the best CV packed with excellent grades and exceptional experiences and extra curricula achievements. And further we need a more sophisticated understanding of how organisational decision-making may be structured to provide developmental opportunities to allow talent to be nurtured and to flourish on individual and team levels. In turn, we suggest that planning, management and accountability cycles within legal entities need to be strengthened so as to ensure creativity and success in a context in which it is possible to deliver on the promise of fair access and promotion. Consequently, this chapter explores the diversity problem within the legal profession(s), further it interrogates what is “talent”, and how and why we should seek to manage and develop it. It then evaluates how talent diversity has been managed in the legal professional context, examined through what we have categorised as three waves of diversity strategies. We interrogate why diversity initiatives have not been more successful given the efforts placed on them by professional bodies and firms themselves. We posit that by using diversity as a case study in talent management legal entities may develop a more effective approach to talent management generally within law firms that will be of benefit to all lawyers and support professionals rather than just those who are from traditionally low participation groups.