Document Type
Article
Publication Date
1995
Abstract
I have often thought myself ill-suited to my chosen profession. I love to argue, but I am often too quick to say both, "yes, I see your point" and concede something to the "other side," and to say of my own arguments, "yes, but, it's not that simple." In short, I have trouble with polarized argument, debate, and the adversarialism that characterizes much of our work. Where others see black and white, I often see not just the "grey" but the purple and red-in short, the complexity of human issues that appear before the law for resolution.
In the last decade or so, a polarized debate about how disputes should be resolved has demonstrated to me once again the difficulties of simplistic and adversarial arguments.
Publication Citation
83 Geo. L.J. 2663
Scholarly Commons Citation
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie, "Whose Dispute Is It Anyway? A Philosophical and Democratic Defense of Settlement (In Some Cases)" (1995). Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works. 1767.
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1767