Career and Experience Jim Reeves

Juan Del Valle: Well, hello, everybody. My name is Juan Del Valle. I am the Director of International Programs and a lecturer in the law school for a little bit more than seven years. I had the opportunity of being a student here in our LLM for International Attorneys program back in 2009, graduated in 2010. I came originally from Colombia, where I was an attorney, and decided to pursue my master’s degree in law here to learn more about the common law system, mostly about the U.S. legal system, and hopefully open some professional doors to work in international organizations and in U.S. law firms.

Jim Reeves: Hi, I’m Jim Reeves. I’m a lecturer in law at Washington University School of Law. I’ve been teaching at Washington University since 2005. Before I came to Washington University, I taught at another university’s law school. Prior to that, I was a litigation attorney for 20 years. Like a lot of our faculty in the NDR program — the Negotiation and Dispute Resolution program — we bring a lot of practice and experience to the classroom, as well as theory. Looking forward to talking with all of you about our wonderful programs.

Juan Del Valle: Today, we are here with Professor Jim Reeves, one of our beloved professors within the Negotiation and Dispute Resolution program and within the law school as a whole. Professor Reeves, as he will be telling us, has wide experience in NDR — what we call NDR, negotiation and dispute resolution — mostly focused on mediation, is my understanding. But I’ll allow him to tell us a little bit about that previous experience. So, Jim — tell us a little bit about that professional practice you have had within this area of NDR.

Jim Reeves: Fantastic. Juan, it’s nice to be here. I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you. You and I are colleagues, and we’ve had an opportunity to co-teach together. I appreciate the opportunity to sit down and talk with you. Thanks for the question.

I started my law career — actually, this year will be 40 years. September 22, 2024, will be 40 years in the practice of law. I was a litigator for 20 years, practiced civil litigation, mostly on the defense side, and had an opportunity to try cases in federal and state courts in the United States.

Very early in my career, in approximately 1989, I started exploring mediation, because I thought, “There’s got to be a better way — a different way — to resolve disputes.” I had an idea. Literally, the word “mediation” popped into my mind, and I thought, “I want to explore this process. I want to know more about it.” It was interesting because I was in a litigation firm, and the partners in that firm were not happy with that choice for me to begin to explore mediation. I did it anyway.

Long story short, I received my mediation training in 1991 and began practicing as a part-time mediator while I was litigating. In 2005, I went back to school, got my Master of Laws in Dispute Resolution with a concentration in Organizational Leadership, because I wanted to work with groups and work in organizations to help resolve disputes. So much of my litigation was growing out of multi-party disputes, and I thought, “If we can resolve these disputes earlier, all the better for the parties and their relationships.”

So, in 2005, I left litigation, and I opened up my own firm. It’s now called Clearbridge Consulting. Along the way, I practiced mediation. I do facilitation, multiparty negotiation, negotiation coaching. But along the way, I also started teaching, in 1995, and came to Washington University in 2005 as an adjunct professor. About seven years ago, I became a lecturer in law at Washington University, where I teach negotiation and dispute resolution courses.

Juan Del Valle: That reminds me a little bit of my story within the negotiation practice. I was a lawyer back in Colombia, and I was litigating. I had a couple of cases that went all the way up to the Supreme Court of Colombia, but I didn’t really like it. I never felt very comfortable in litigation. I worked for Baker McKenzie, and a couple of other very renowned law firms. But I think not every lawyer is exactly the same. We’re not cut in the same way. Some of us will feel very comfortable sometimes in law firms; others will not.

I remember that, actually, it was here at WashU in my LLM program that I took the negotiations course. It was a one-credit weekend course, but I took it — and I have to confess, I was not really interested in the course back then. I just needed one credit to have a little bit more flexibility in my second semester.

So I ended up in the negotiations course by accident. And I have to tell you, this is the happiest accident I have ever been in — because after the course, my life changed, my professional plans changed, and I decided, “You know what? There’s so much more that can be done with this negotiations theory and trying to solve problems instead of making them bigger.” I think that became my motto. I decided that I wanted to help clients solve their problems instead of making them bigger through litigation.

That’s where I started studying negotiations, and ended up teaching negotiations with you. I think that was, in my view, the best career path — at least the best professional career path.

Now, one question I was thinking of when you were telling us about your experience, Jim: you have experienced both — I’m going to say — victory in litigation, maybe winning a case, but also success or victory whenever you help clients solve a problem and maybe shake hands or hug and say goodbye. Which one gives you more satisfaction, and why?

Jim Reeves: Oh — that’s a tough one. You and I — our experience illustrates something about the practice of law that has evolved in the time that I’ve been practicing in the last 40 years. The role of a lawyer, certainly in the United States, and I would argue internationally, has changed. We used to be warriors. We used to be litigators. We’d go in there — people would hire us to go out there and be the strong advocate. That’s still an important role of attorneys.

But ultimately, I think we have evolved to the point where people understand that lawyers are problem-solvers, and that really is the core function of lawyering, I think. I have to tell you, first of all — I’m going to be very honest — there’s nothing like winning a case and having a jury come back and find in favor of your client. Trying cases for me was not about competition and winning; it was about putting on a good performance and convincing a jury. When that happens, it’s like a successful theatrical performance to me, and the crowd goes wild. So there’s a real high there.

However, there’s an equal high — and sometimes an even higher high, if you will — in helping people solve problems short of litigation. In my career as a mediator, I have actually had people hug, had people shake hands. When you have seen them in the beginning of the day when they can hardly look at each other and barely speak to each other — to be able to have that kind of reaction, where they’re shaking hands, they’re nodding, they’re smiling, they’re appreciating each other — they sign an agreement, and they go on about their lives. They’ve taken care of something in four to six to eight hours that would have taken them years to resolve. That’s incredibly satisfying.

Juan Del Valle: Now, one other question I had: I understand that you have both domestic and international students within your courses on business negotiation, comparative business negotiation, negotiations, mediation. How do you feel the combination of having international-trained attorneys, or even students who come from other fields, with domestic JD students — do you think that adds anything to the classroom experience? And what does it add for you as a professor?

Jim Reeves: I think it does add a lot. What’s interesting is that I’m not always sure when students come in at the beginning of the semester — and I have a combination of domestic and international students — if the students understand the opportunities available to them in the 13 weeks that I have them in the classroom. So I try to design curriculum that brings them together at the beginning of a lot of my courses. It’s a lot of getting to know each other. I design exercises where they talk.

What I find within two to three weeks of that semester, after they’ve had an opportunity not just to look across the room and see somebody — “Oh, I wonder where you’re from, I wonder where you’re from” — they get to know each other as individuals. They learn so much — not law, but about people, and customs, and different ways of thinking, and different ways of doing things. It takes some patience, because for our international students, their first language is not English. So they have to adjust to English expressions and concepts and legal concepts. And our domestic students have to understand and be patient and listen to the international students.

By the end of the semester, they’re having conversations. I had a fall semester a couple of years ago where the domestic students really got together with the international students. They had a great time. It came to be Halloween. A group of the domestic students took a bunch of the international students out to go pick pumpkins. The photographs are just priceless. That’s the kind of stuff that I live for.

Juan Del Valle: That’s amazing. I had a similar situation in one of my courses, where one of the 3L JD students made a potluck at his house, and we had food from around the world — very spicy, by the way. For the most part, I’m not a very spicy person, but it was amazing to be able to share outside the classroom and then see the relationships that had been created — these relationships between individuals from very different cultures, languages, and, most importantly — and that’s where I want to focus — legal systems.

Because one of the things I’ve seen throughout these years of teaching similar courses to you is that I’ve seen an increased demand and interest from individuals from other legal systems — namely the civil law system, and sometimes Sharia-law-based systems — into learning and increasing their skills to settle outside court. Studies around the world have shown that there is a big tendency from civil-law-system individuals to solve their problems in court and wait for the adjudication — wait for a judge to tell them what to do and what not to do. So settlement rates tend to be very low.

When compared with the U.S. legal system, we see how those settlement rates tend to be much, much higher here. Now, I’m seeing this increase in interest to learn how to settle, how to solve problems outside court, from individuals who come from other legal systems. What have you seen in your courses? Have you seen examples? How have you seen this growing interest from individuals who come from other legal systems in this specific area of settlement?

Jim Reeves: Well, you know, what I have seen — and I have to tell you, I have learned so much from my students on exactly the topics that you’re describing. I grew up in the United States. I know our common law system. When I meet students who have grown up in a civil law system, I’m curious. I ask them, “What do you see as differences? What do you see as advantages and disadvantages?”

What’s interesting to me is, there are at least two factors that come into these conversations. One is just the cost and expense and time consumption of the system. This is the practical aspect of resolving disputes. If it takes a long time and it’s very expensive — like the litigation system in the United States — people start to look at other ways. I think that’s in part why alternative dispute resolution has become so ingrained in the legal system in the United States.

Similarly, I’ve spoken with students in other countries where the civil law system — the trial, if you will, getting that adjudication — is not so onerous in their country. But perhaps another system, for example arbitration in some countries, is very burdensome. So people start to look at: “Okay, what’s a different way where we can solve this problem short of having to go to a big, long process?”

The second aspect is the human aspect — and this is what you and I have talked about — relationships. How are we going to solve this problem? How are we going to solve this problem in a way that is going to be most effective for us, and keep control over the solution, as opposed to handing it over to a judge or a jury or somebody who’s going to tell us what to do, because that may not fit with our deep-lying interests and what we really need in our relationship? We want to continue our relationship. That adjudication may not work for us. One of us is not going to be happy. So I think those two particular aspects — the burdensome nature of the process itself, which leads us to look at alternatives, and also the human aspect of the relationships and designing our own solutions.

Juan Del Valle: Definitely, definitely. Well, thank you so much, Jim. Whenever we speak about NDR and the way the program is built here at WashU, I would say that one of the strong programs within the law school is definitely NDR. The NDR program not only has several courses to choose from, but I would say it includes several fields. Some of them include what we could understand as amicable dispute resolution processes — that include normally a communication process in which parties are trying to build a solution, either by themselves or with the help of a third neutral. But we also have alternative dispute resolutions within adjudication processes — namely arbitration.

Arbitration, the way we know it, at least here in the United States, is an adjudication process — or private adjudication process — in which an individual or group of individuals at the end is going to be making a binding decision. Now, I’ve seen a growing tendency for interest in this area — and probably it has to do with the fact that whenever you go nowadays and buy a cell phone, there is an arbitration clause; whenever you do almost absolutely any transaction, now we have arbitration clauses out there.

What do you think the law school has to offer in the knowledge and training, not only for amicable dispute resolutions, but also for these alternative adjudication processes, for both our domestic and international students?

Jim Reeves: We have an incredibly rich curriculum in the NDR program. When we say NDR — Negotiation and Dispute Resolution — sometimes people call it dispute resolution, alternative dispute resolution. At Washington University, we call the program NDR — Negotiation and Dispute Resolution. We have such a rich curriculum, because our curriculum covers traditional litigation but also arbitration, both domestic and international; negotiation — basic negotiation. You’ve taken a class at Washington University in basic negotiation, but also more advanced negotiation.

We have the Psychology of Negotiation. We have Business Negotiations. We have Comparative Business Negotiations. We have Multi-Party and Public Policy Dispute Resolution. So we’re looking at the whole world as we design curriculum, to think about not only what are the needs of both domestic and international students, but also what are the problems they’re going to try to solve as attorneys? Where are they going to go after law school? What kinds of situations are they going to be useful in trying to resolve disputes and solve problems?

As we design the curriculum and put this together, we try to anticipate what are the skills that students are going to need when they graduate from Washington University. As a result, we have come out with an incredibly rich curriculum that we offer our students.

Juan Del Valle: I would say that, from all of those courses you named, you forgot the most important one — which is called Cross-Cultural Dispute Resolution. It’s the most interesting one. No, just kidding. I teach it. I know — you saw my bias. Just so everyone knows. Wonderful.

One last question, Jim, before we close this wonderful meeting — and, you know, we could stay here talking forever about not only the program, but, of course, about your experience, which is amazing. What type of student do you think would benefit from our NDR program?

Jim Reeves: Oh — I don’t see a limit. And that’s not just a line. That’s not just a Washington University pitch. Any student who is dealing with people. The reason I say that is, our curriculum — actually, any NDR curriculum — the skills that we teach, everything from mediation, negotiation, decision-making, the psychology… I tell my students, “Don’t keep this stuff in the classroom. Take it home. It works at home.” Our partners at home, our business partners, people we meet on the street — that communication, that ability to connect, that ability to have a conversation. That’s a human activity. That’s something anybody — a skill anybody — needs to have, particularly those who are going to be lawyers, because we find ourselves as lawyers, as you and I both know, in a whole variety of different situations. Our clients’ needs are different. Not a single case is the same, and we have to be able to adjust. That adjustment means what we bring to the table, but also designing a process that is going to be useful for that particular situation and that particular client. So I think our curriculum covers all of that. When you ask what kind of student would be appropriate, my answer is yes — any student.

Juan Del Valle: Oh, well — good to hear, and I hope that all our audience has received that message. I totally agree with Jim. I think definitely NDR is an area that is useful for absolutely anybody.

I remember one definition: in one of those courses I took in negotiation, I had a professor, Diana Buttu, who has been a mediator and negotiator in important international conflicts. When asked, “What is a negotiation?” she told us, “A negotiation happens every time you cannot do something on your own.” That means that we are in constant negotiation. We are constantly looking for and seeking agreement with other individuals. So again — for domestic and international students who are looking to solve problems, I would definitely say that this is the path. I agree 100%.

Well — thank you so much, Professor Reeves. It was an honor having you on this podcast.

Jim Reeves: Juan — it’s been a pleasure. Thank you.

Juan Del Valle: Thank you. Adiós. Arrivederci.