For most of this week, my energy has been caught up in Round
1 of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Team tryouts. ADR is exactly what it
sounds like, alternative means of resolving disputes. For competition purposes,
it is split into three sub-areas: negotiation, arbitration, and mediation. Each
competitor’s performance is judged and scored. (It’s sort of a law school
version of competitive sports.)
Trying out for ADR was very intimidating for me. I had never
done anything like this before and it was mostly out of my comfort zone. But I
was looking forward to trying something new and it’s good to do something scary
every once in a while.
I signed up to try out for several reasons. ADR is a good
opportunity to be involved and meet some good people, a good item to put on a
resume, a chance to do something new, an opportunity to polish some actual
lawyer skills (very few things in law school actually do this; school is mostly
about getting someone to think like a
lawyer), a potential for a little prestige, etc.
Also, there was an escape clause. By signing up, I agreed to
complete Round 1 of tryouts, but if I wanted to, I could choose to withdraw
before Round 2. Having that option gave me a sort of cushion for the uncertainties
I had about trying out (would I like it, would it take too much time, would it get
in the way of other things I want to do, etc.).
Round 1 involved one negotiation and one arbitration by each
competitor. Each event was 2 on 2, so competitors were randomly paired, and
each pair was assigned to represent the plaintiffs or the defendants in a
dispute. We were given a fact pattern for each dispute, which consisted of the general
story and facts known to both sides and a set of confidential facts for each side.
My negotiation was Wednesday night. My partner and I were
representing Caesar’s Palace (the Las Vegas casino) in its claim against a
group of raucous guests who (with the help of some hotel employees) had
destroyed an expensive hotel villa. (The story was modeled on the movie The Hangover; it reinforced the fact
that I never need to see any part of that film. But it makes a good fact
pattern for a dispute.) We had 30 minutes to negotiate a settlement with the
other side, while the 2L & 3L ADR team members acted as judges.
My arbitration was on Saturday. My partner and I were
representing MTV in a salary dispute with the cast members of Jersey Shore (another show I don’t need
to see). Each side had 12 minutes to present their case to a panel of
arbitrators (the 2Ls and 3Ls) and an additional 4 minutes of rebuttal.
It was an adventure.
It’s hard to describe the fluctuation in my thoughts and
feelings throughout the week. Saying I went back and forth between continuing
with Round 2 and withdrawing from the competition is correct in essentials, but
much too simplistic. Suffice it to say that I left my Saturday evening
arbitration feeling extremely conflicted about whether to continue with the
competition. And I had to decide soon since the schedule for Round 2 would be
set around midnight.
So, as I went straight from the competition to the General
Relief Society Broadcast, as I chatted with the wonderful Jamestown and
Williamsburg sisters, and as I munched on some very appreciated (and delicious)
appetizers, I felt a continuous mental and emotional undercurrent tied directly
to ADR. As the meeting began, I had two prayers: to have an answer and to feel
at peace with that answer.
Well, “ask and ye shall receive.” About halfway through the
meeting, with half of my attention on the speakers and half of it on ADR, my
internal turmoil calmed and I had my answer. But that sounds more quick and dramatic
than it was. It wasn’t like a tempest on the sea being calmed; it was more like
a restless leaf being blown along the ground until finally coming to rest in a
picturesque and quiet corner.
Upon arriving home after the meeting, I sent an email to
withdraw from the competition.
The interesting thing is, all the reasons I had pondered for
why I might want to withdraw didn’t really add up to my ultimate reason for
doing so. I knew and acknowledged all of those conflicts and I was willing to
work through them. Instead, what it came down to was a decision between two
paths. On the one hand was a valuable, rewarding experience heavily favoring
law school and a subsequently strong career. On the other hand was a valuable,
rewarding, more obscure path focused less on law school and more on other
types of service.
May I emphasize here that neither path was bad or wrong.
Both had good and productive and rewarding outcomes. Nor did I have a clear idea
of what other types of service are down path number two. “But,” I said in my
internal conversation, “if they are mutually exclusive, I choose THIS work.”
My answer did not come in the form of: “This is what you
need to do.” Nor was I told whether the two paths are indeed mutually
exclusive. Rather, my choice was my answer.* And along with that choice came
the peace of letting the other path go.
(*Note: there is a
subtle distinction here between two choices. One was a choice between
continuing with the competition or not. The other was a choice of broader scope
and deeper penetration. It was the second choice that was an answer for the first.)
Trying out for ADR was a good and fun experience. I’ve had an
abundance of supplemental thoughts, feelings, and insights resulting from it. And
at the core is a valuable gem of spiritual understanding about what I really
want. So, I feel very blessed.
(And yes, I’m relieved that I don’t have to worry about studying
additional fact patterns this week.)