Arizona Mediation - Business Conflict Negotiation for Mediation Resolution

Divorce Without Court - Arizona Mediation and Divorce Processing

2010-07-09T13:56:00.001-07:00

Agreement House isn't just about business mediation.

At Agreement House, we believe in coming to an agreement about divorce in Arizona without going to court.

When it comes to mediation vs. court, mediation is the winner most of the time - taking hours instead of months, often at 1/10 the cost.

If you've already agreed on the issues involved with your divorce, it's a simple matter to review your decisions, put them on paper and get them filed in your name.

If you haven't yet agreed, sit in with us for a 90 minute D.O.R.A session (Divorce Options Review and Assessment) where you can learn all of your options, prepare for your divorce, and schedule for Arizona mediation or document preparation.

Visit our website or call us at 480-496-2201.

Look For Our Article in the Arizona Republic

2010-06-18T07:12:00.000-07:00

Karina Bland, writer for the Arizona Republic, is doing a story on Agreement House, including an interview with head attorney John Zarzynski and some of our satisfied customers. Keep a lookout for the article in the June 25th edition.

Arizona Republic Website

What if Your Divorce Bleeds into Your Business?

2010-06-06T11:51:00.001-07:00

Many times, your business is shared or you are both investors in a project, a company or an idea. And then someone starts talking about divorce. Now what?

As business mediators, divorce attorneys, mediators, family law practitioners and document preparers, we at Agreement House cover all the bases necessary to process a divorce quickly, and inexpensively, and separate the rigors of a business from the chaos of the Arizona divorce process.

Agreement House's provides a concise, three step divorce program - D.O.R.A., Mediation and Assisted Divorce give you the confidence to move forward, the help to come to a reasonable agreement, and the knowledge and resources to process and complete your divorce in a timely manner for much less cost than traditional methods.

Is bankruptcy an issue? We are joined with others who can not only help you mediate and process your divorce, but work a feasible bankruptcy plan into the equation as well.

Call Agreement House at 480-496-2201 to set up an Arizona divorce appointment or visit our AZ divorce website to get more information.

Business doesn't have to be marred by divorce, and we're here to move you towards a more agreeable future.

Business Conflict Negotiation and Mediation Resolution

2010-04-07T09:45:00.001-07:00

Business conflict is about negotiation to find terms that both sides desire, but when conflict negotiation breaks down, a mediation resolution is necessary.

Developing a mediation resolution means finding a common ground (between partners, for example), finding options to business conflict (with contractors and clients) and creating policy that will allow others to negotiate conflict in the future (useful for employees, customers and residents).

As a result, Agreement House application of business conflict negotiation and the mediation resolution allows businesses to solve problems that lie within like those between partners, between employers and employees, and between staff and customers, as well as improving relations for HOAs between contractors and other external sources and within the communities they manage.

Learn more about Business Conflict Negotiation and Arizona Mediation Resolution at AgreementHouse.com.

Happy Belated New Year from Agreement House

2010-03-06T09:01:00.000-08:00

Sure, it's March, but Happy New Year, just in time for St. Patrick's Day and March Madness. We hope your relationships are going swimmingly as Valentine's Day is one of the peak periods for divorces. If you're still going strong, congrats, but if you're considering divorce or have any business conflict, consider visiting us at Agreement House for your mediation resolution needs.

We now offer free initial consultations at our office for divorce cases, and are expanding our business mediation services to the Tucson area.

We always hope you're getting along, but if not, we're just a short trip or a phone call away.

Updates to our Website

2009-12-31T13:25:00.000-08:00

Some changes to our website:
On the main page - Arizona Mediation for Divorce and Business - Phoenix Mediators
and in the business section Employee, Partner, Customer and Contractor Mediation - Getting Started.

Agreement House at Tempe Chamber of Commerce

2009-12-12T17:18:00.000-08:00

Agreement House will have representatives at the Tempe Chamber of Commerce Holiday Mixer on December 15, and Business Before Hours on December 16.

Visit the Tempe Chamber of Commerce for details and come say hi.

Agreement House Business Mediation - Now in Tucson

2009-11-16T08:18:00.000-08:00

To better serve Arizona, Agreement House's Business Mediation arm is extending to Tucson and the metro Tucson area.

Arizona mediation including employee, contract, HOA and resident disputes can be solved by coming to your office or place of business, working out details that might otherwise involve courts, collection agencies or other complex and time-consuming options.

If you need business mediation in Tucson or Oro Valley, contact Dale at 480-839-5537.

How to NOT Get Screwed™ the Wise Negotiator’s Guide to Aggressive AgreeAbility™

2009-11-04T11:09:00.000-08:00

By Dale Dauten
Co-founder, Agreement House

OK, let’s start with this assumption about you and the negotiation you are going to enter into: You are an honorable person who wants what’s fair. You aren’t out to screw anybody, but then again, you aren’t willing to get screwed, either. Sound about right? If so, then you need enough negotiation theory to make sure you don’t get manipulated.

Below are eight principles that should help you prepare. However, before we start, there’s one matter of pre-negotiation work you should consider to make sure you don’t make a mistake and end up regretting your negotiated deal. Skilled mediators want to know the BATNA – the Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement. That is, if you walk away from the negotiating table, what’s the best outcome you can hope for? In most cases you don’t really know; after all, the typical BATNA is going to court. Still, you need to do some research and have an idea of the likely outcome if you do end up in court. Then you can subtract the costs of court (not just money, but also time and stress) and go into the negotiation saying to yourself, “If I get X, that’ll beat going to court, and I might just do much better than that.” Once you have that decided, it’s time for… eight principles of The Wise Negotiator™:

Assume it’s not personal (even when it’s personal)
Anger and hostility are bad negotiation karma – research shows that aggressive or bullying tactics backfire.

The Wise Negotiator™ separates the person from the negotiation and refuses to react with hostility to tactics like a ridiculous low-ball offer. Rather, the skilled negotiator merely thinks, “That’s an interesting strategy” and thinks through what that means for the counteroffer.

It’s not where you start; it’s where you finish
A common notion is that you should never make the first offer; however, studies show that the person making the opening proposal ends up, on average, in a bit better final position.

It’s hard to un-leap
Whether you call it a game or a dance, a negotiation is a series of moves. If you rush the process, and offer too much in one leap, then you make yourself vulnerable to a less dramatic counter-move.

(For instance, let’s say one side is offering $10K to settle a dispute and the other side wants $20K. What happens if early in the negotiation the $10K person says, “let’s just split the difference”? You might get quick agreement, but then again, the other side might say, “Well, I can’t do 15, but I might consider 17.” Now the person who jumped to the middle has been outmaneuvered and the debate is on the upper half of the range.)

“Never say YES and never say NO"
That’s from veteran negotiator Ruth Schlossman of Washington, DC, and what she means is that every move calls for a counter-move. Simple rejection of an offer tends to frustrate the process, while quick agreement leaves the other person backtracking, feeling they offered too much. Thus, her favorite responses are “Yes, if….” and “No, but….” That way you keep the process in motion.

Never negotiate with yourself
While you must be aware that every offer sends a message about the state of mind of the person making it, if you make a concession decision in isolation, before making an offer, the other side is unaware of your generosity.

(An example: You might feel you truly deserve 75% of the proceeds from the sale of an investment and think to yourself, “Well, I don’t want to argue -- I’ll just offer to split it.” Fine, but know that you just gave a concession and got nothing in return. You lost the chance to ask for corresponding generosity from the other side on some other issue. If nothing else, you gave away the negotiating goodwill that comes from letting the other party know you’re trying to be helpful and conciliatory.)

A range isn’t a range, after all
When you throw out a range, the other side then knows that you’ll accept the end they find most favorable, so they take the best extreme as the offer, forgetting the range.

Beware “the hidden table"
Sometimes there’s someone who isn’t at the negotiation table who is, nonetheless, a major influence on the outcome -- that person is known as “the hidden table.” These outside influencers can prevent agreement and are best dealt with by upfront candor.

Our motto at Agreement House™ is “leading you to a more agreeable future.”™
We try to never forget the real goal: to get a “durable agreement,” one that will stand and not result in a series of re-negotiations. The way to get there is by being open and seeking fairness, and being The Wise Negotiator™, one that knows how not to get manipulated and to instead be aggressively agreeable.

Copyright © 2009, Agreement House

Dale Dauten is one of the founders of Agreement House and is the firm’s lead business mediator, helping settle employment, supplier, homeowner and employee disputes. He also negotiates in divorce cases, particularly where there are businesses or extensive investments involved.

The Psychology of Persuasion - Principles of Persuasion and Influence

2009-10-19T12:54:00.000-07:00

Our goal at Agreement House(TM) is to help our clients get to "a more agreeable future"(TM) . This means more than just solving an outstanding disagreement, but also helping them learn to get more and better agreements in the future. That's one reason that I've been studying the work of Dr. Robert Cialdini, the country's leading Social Psychologist and author of the classic Influence, a book that has sold over a million copies. I've turned to Bob for advice on negotiation and I've written about him in my newspaper columns and I'm pleased to add that Bob Cialdini and I have become friends over the past decade.

When Bob learned about my work with Agreement House(TM) he offered to help by giving us permission to reprint one of his best overall articles on his "principles of influence" and we're pleased to make it available to our readers.

Dale Dauten

What follows is The Science of Influence: Using the Principles of Persuasion to Mediate and Negotiate More Effectively, as published in Dispute Resolution (Fall, 2002) pp. 20-22.

Overview

Over the past several decades, behavioral scientists have conducted studies on the process of social influence – the ways in which people can influence others’ attitudes and actions. Now a substantial body of systematic research demonstrates that certain interactions can lead people to accept a proposal or comply with a request that they might otherwise reject.

This research has identified six fundamental principles of influence. These principles do not involve the merits of the proposal or request itself, but the way in which it is communicated.

In the pages that follow, we describe the six basic principles of influence. In addition, we offer suggestions for how mediators and negotiators can harness these principles effectively and responsibly. The applicability of the science of social influence to mediation and negotiation is corroborated by the overlap between the research outcomes and the practices that have emerged as successful in these settings.

Six Principles of Effective Influence

I. The Principle of Liking

Although it may be fairly obvious that people are more easily influenced by those they like, social science research on the topic can help us employ this straightforward principle to become more influential in our professional interactions. Research has uncovered several factors that affect how much one person will like another (e.g., physical attractiveness, compliments and cooperative efforts). But one factor stands out as the most powerful and the easiest to implement: similarity.

In a simple but telling demonstration of the effects of similarity on influence, researchers mailed a set of surveys to random individuals. These surveys were accompanied by a cover letter, which for some of the recipients was “signed” by a researcher with a name designed to be similar to the recipient’s (e.g., Patty James might receive a letter signed Patricia Jones). Although identical in all other aspects, the surveys sent with similar names were completed twice as often as the others.

If something as trivial as similarity of names can affect compliance with a request, imagine how much more compelling a meaningful commonality, such as a shared interest, group membership, or goal, might be. Thus, a mediator or negotiator should spend the time necessary to locate such parallels among relevant parties and bring them to the surface.

Applications

To emphasize the parties’ similarities, negotiators and mediators can point out the interests the parties have in common. For example, in a contract case, a negotiator could mention that both parties have expressed an interest in maintaining their business relationship, minimizing negative publicity, and avoiding the uncertainty and cost of trial. In a domestic relations case, a mediator could note that both parents have said they want to resolve the dispute quickly and to work out residential and visitation arrangements that would be least disruptive for the children.

II. The Principle of Authority

People are more easily influenced by those they perceive to be legitimate authorities. This response makes great sense because legitimate authorities have typically attained their positions by virtue of greater knowledge or skill or experience in the matter at hand. But for all their specialized knowledge, these experts frequently act like novices in the domain of social influence by assuming that their expertise is self-evident.

For instance, physical therapists at one hospital were concerned about their patients’ compliance with their prescribed treatment plans. After being discharged from the hospital, many patients discontinued their therapy exercises, no matter how much the therapists stressed their importance. However, a simple intervention solved the problem. By hanging their numerous awards, diplomas and certifications on the walls of their clinic, the therapists were able to raise compliance by 34 percent.

In general, genuine authorities should establish their expertise before launching any influence attempt (e.g., in a letter of introduction). To be optimally persuasive, however, expertise is not enough; a communicator also must establish that he or she is a trustworthy source of information.

Applications

In materials distributed prior to the session, mediators should inform parties of their mediation experience (e.g., the number of cases they have mediated or years they have served as mediators; the mediation training or certification they have received). In preliminary conversations with the other side, negotiators could mention their expertise in the subject matter of the dispute. Besides conveying their expertise, one way that negotiators can demonstrate their trustworthiness is by raising not only the strengths of their case but by also acknowledging some weaknesses.

III. The Principle of Scarcity

Of all the automobiles sold last year, which brand do you think most exceeded its sales projections? It was Oldsmobile—a car so poor on its merits that General Motors had announced that it would no longer be manufactured. But that announcement had an unexpected effect, spurring droves of buyers into Oldsmobile showrooms to get one of the cars before they were gone.

We can explain this otherwise odd behavior in terms of the principle of scarcity: Items and opportunities become more desirable as they become less accessible. As a result, an effective mediator or negotiator should never fail to describe the unique or otherwise unattainable advantages of any recommendation or offer.
Moreover, research on the principle of scarcity has demonstrated that, in situations characterized by uncertainty, presenting these unique advantages as what stands to be lost by a failure to take action is more persuasive than emphasizing what stands to be gained by taking the action.

Applications

Mediators can emphasize the unique benefits of mediation that the parties will lose if they do not mediate or if they do not settle in mediation (e.g., the parties would lose the assistance of a neutral third-party to resolve the dispute, they would miss the chance to discuss certain issues that would not be relevant at trial, they would lose the opportunity to design a resolution tailored specifically to their needs and interests, they would spend more time and money on the dispute, and they would miss certain personal or business opportunities if the lawsuit were still pending).

Negotiators can point out the unique advantages of each proposal that will be lost if it is not accepted (e.g., the party would not get the prompt payment of some of the money owed or would not have the benefit of a confidentiality provision in the agreement).

IV. The Principle of Consistency

When a popular restaurant was having trouble with large numbers of patrons who failed to honor their reservations, the owner devised a simple plan that nearly eradicated the problem. After the receptionist took a reservation over the telephone, instead of ending with the usual request, “Please call if you have to change your plans,” she substituted a question: “Will you please call if you have to change your plans?” This new line prompted the patrons to commit to calling if they needed to change the reservation, dropping the unannounced no-show rate from 30 percent to 10 percent immediately.

The success of this small wording change illustrates the effectiveness of the principle of consistency: People have a strong desire to be consistent with their previous opinions, assertions and actions. Consistency can be used quite effectively when setting rules for people to follow. The key is to prompt them to make an initial public commitment that is consistent with the rule.
Written commitments to a desired form of action are particularly effective in this regard, especially when the written commitment is then shown to others. In one study, participants were somewhat more likely to stay loyal to their initial decisions if they wrote down the decisions privately. But they were far more likely to remain loyal to those decisions if they wrote them down and then showed them to others.

In general, research indicates that individuals are likely to live up to commitments that are active, public and voluntary (i.e., uncoerced).

Applications

So that the parties’ need for consistency with their earlier statements will work to facilitate rather than to impede settlement, mediators and negotiators should avoid having parties state their “bottom line” positions. Instead, they should encourage parties to specify their underlying interests and to agree publicly to consider a wide range of options. Mediators and negotiators should then be sure to note when a given proposal is consistent with a party’s previously stated interests.

In addition, to increase the likelihood that parties will comply with their agreement, negotiators should avoid using threats or pressure tactics, and mediators should assure that the parties actively and voluntarily choose to accept the settlement. Mediators also should have each party commit to the agreement in front of the other party, as well as in writing.

V. The Principle of Reciprocity

When you go into the office tomorrow, try smiling at as many people as you can. You’ll find that almost everyone will return the smile.
Aside from brightening your day, you’ve given yourself a simple demonstration of the principle of reciprocity: People give back what another has given them. Although reciprocity is usually thought of as governing the exchange of money, goods or services, as just illustrated, it does not apply only to the material or monetary.
When participating in a conversation or discussion, by providing others with attention, information, concessions and respect, you will likely receive the same from them in return.

Applications

Negotiators can increase the likelihood that the other side will adopt a collaborative approach if they themselves are courteous and forthcoming rather than combative and uncooperative during negotiations. Mediators can build on the felt obligation to reciprocate by encouraging each side to be responsive to the other side’s concessions and to exchange similar amounts and types of information.

VI. The Principle of Social Proof

One fundamental way that individuals decide what they should do in a situation is to look at what similar others have done. Hence, the “proof” of what is correct isn’t grounded in the physical environment but in the social environment: “If a lot of people like me are doing it, it must be the right thing to do.”
This tendency to look to and follow the lead of similar others will be strongest in situations characterized by uncertainty. For instance, have you noticed how frequently we look to our colleagues and coworkers to determine how we should behave in a new setting? To the extent that these individuals demonstrate effective skills, techniques, or other productive behaviors, we are likely to do so, too.
Thus, when training others, we should highlight the successes and productive practices of those already in the situation. And when advising others, we might illustrate the positive consequences of certain decisions by discussing what has happened to successful others in similar situations.

Applications

If parties cannot agree on the dollar value of damages, negotiators could point to typical verdicts or settlements in similar cases. If parties cannot agree on how to fashion the settlement to adequately resolve a particular issue, mediators could note the types of settlement provisions that have worked well in similar cases.

Conclusion

This article describes six influence principles and the fundamental ways by which the influence process proceeds under each one. Two related issues, however, require additional elaboration.

First, although the six principles can be treated separately (as we have just done for the purpose of clarity), they should not be employed separately. They are best applied in combinations and strings that multiply their impact. Effective practitioners will be aware of influence opportunities that allow the principles to be employed conjointly or sequentially.

Second, the science of social influence, like any powerful technology, can be commissioned for good or ill. One needs to understand the acceptable versus the objectionable use of the process. Just because we can employ the lessons of that science to influence others doesn’t mean that we are entitled—or even wise—to do so.
Using these principles to trick or trap others into assent has significant ethical and practical downsides. As the best influence professionals have long realized, to the extent that dishonest or high pressure tactics work at all, they work only in the short run. Their long-term effects are malignant -- undermining trust and damaging the reputation of the practitioner who employs them. Thus, the deceptive or coercive use of social influence principles within professional relationships is not only ethically wrong, it’s pragmatically wrongheaded.

Yet the same principles, if engaged appropriately, can influence decisions in a positive way. When the similarities are authentic, the windows of opportunity truly closing, the authority legitimate, the commitments freely made, the obligations genuine, and the social proof real, the resultant choices are likely to benefit everyone.

How NOT to Get Screwed in Business Deals, Part One Or From Worrying to Celebrating in Half a Day

2009-10-14T19:52:00.000-07:00

BY DALE DAUTEN

“Start with an ideal and end up with a deal” - Karl Albrecht

True or false? People are basically good.
I don’t know about you, but I’m going with true.

True or false? The world is full of jerks.
This one is trickier for me. I’m going with false, even though I know, deep down, that it’s true. I lie to myself because of this third truth:

If you assume the worst about people, you’re likely to get it.

What got me thinking about our assumptions about human nature is my recent work in mediating business disputes. Let’s take a recent intervention in a business deal going sour. I’m changing some details, but here’s the basic situation: A company in Arizona that makes business equipment components sent a 50K order to a new customer in Texas. The Texans called to say that some of the equipment arrived damaged and some was the wrong stuff. The Arizonans immediately sent replacement goods – but (ouch!) some were still wrong. Still, the plucky Arizonans bounced back, air freighting out re-replacements at considerable expense.

Weeks later, the Texans paid the bill… sort of. They held back 10K – just temporarily, they insisted, just in case they were to uncover further mistakes or damage.

Naturally, this troubled the Arizonans, who’d already absorbed extra costs and who secretly felt the Texans had overreacted. Indeed, as they thought about things, the Arizonans began to wonder if by holding back money the Texans weren’t trying to wheedle out of full payment.

Then, in the midst of that anxiety, the Texans announced that their client had requested additional goods. The nervous Arizonans debated whether to make fulfilling the second order conditional on full payment of the old one. They pulled out the contract and there, in the fine print, it said they would charge interest on any delayed payment. Doing so might show the Texans they were steely negotiators. Worse case, though, they could end up in court. That’s when they thought about calling an attorney.

Calling a lawyer could have been a good decision, if it was the right kind of attorney – one who understood the danger of making this a legal issue. However, there aren’t many attorneys who are experts in NOT making an issue a legal issue.

Rather, what’s the typical response when the other side brings in an attorney? You pull a knife; I pull a gun. Threats of suits and counter-suits would then follow and everybody hates everybody.

I’m pleased to report that didn’t happen here. Instead of calling an attorney, one of the Arizonans called the mediation company I helped establish, Agreement House, and I got to mediate the case. It was NOT a legal issue, despite the fact that there was a contract involved there somewhere; no, it was just worry turned into assumptions that became suspicions. If you let a misunderstanding become a legal issue, you’ve misunderstood everything about business.

So I spent a few hours on the phone to the Texans, then the Arizonans, back and forth, rebuilding confidence. We worked out the old payment, and the new one, and eventually the Texans started talking about a new project they could offer the Arizonans. In half a day the Arizonans went from worrying to celebrating.

Here’s the IBP, the Important Business Principle: Assume the worst about people and that’s what you’ll get. And letting a business misunderstanding become a legal issue is assuming the worst. Said another way, If you have a flame that’s in danger of becoming a fire, you want expert help. But make sure it’s really help: After all, a pyromaniac is, also, an expert on fires.

2009 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.

What Can Mediation Do For My Business?

2009-10-09T08:59:00.001-07:00

Mediation does two things:

+ Gives you an opportunity to get to the heart of a conflict and work out issues before a disagreement goes to court, and possibly solve the problem out of court.

+ Lowers your cost in time, money and stress.

Mediation doesn't always work. Some people don't want to talk about the issues or can't find a middle ground, and some simply want their day in court.

The downfall of going to court, besides the costs, is that the initial conflict isn't solved. If employees remain, whether they win or lose their case, there will usually continue to be conflict with other employees and management, and the problem that started it all may not be properly repaired through policy or other changes.

For HOAs and Landlords, relationships with contractors can be bruised to the point of lost business, work that was supposed to be finished may go unfinished, or worse, finished with a grudge. If the dispute is with a resident, win or lose, fostering the right neighborhood mentality cannot be done in an adversarial court and neighbors may continue to have conflicts in the future.

Mediation is great for:

+ Businesses where employee/employee or employee/management conflicts develop because mediators can bring the issues to the surface, allowing both sides to suggest solutions, change policy and move forward. Often times, a simple shift in resources, change in schedules or policy can put the entire operation back on an even keel.

+ HOAs where HOA/contractor conflict or HOA/Resident conflicts develop because, in the case of contractors, business relationships can be maintained through the understanding of what work needs to be done and whether it was done to code and standards, while equitable payment or refund issues can be worked out to the satisfaction of both parties.

+ In the case of HOA/Resident conflict or neighbor/neighbor conflict, mediators can address issues in terms of the CCRs, help sides negotiate terms for making changes and doing it in a reasonable period of time/amount of money, while bringing both sides together to understand the expectations of neighbors, both cultural and legal.

If you have a business/residential dispute, mediators are your lower cost and higher quality solution.

Workplace Conflict Resolution

2009-10-09T08:49:00.000-07:00

The workplace is rife with disputes, infighting and grudges. Employees dislike each other for whatever reason, employees develop conflicts with employers, and in some cases, petty arguments develop into harassment, sexism and racism.

In the former cases, solving conflicts internally can resolve issues that reduce productivity, lower morale and can escalate into maliciousness. In the latter cases, however, lawsuits are becoming more common, and employers are shelling out more money and time to deal with inappropriate behavior, instead of attacking the problem itself and stopping it before it happens.

Mediation allows employers to discover bad work environments, make changes and develop policies without interrupting the workflow, while also allowing management to speak with and work out issues with disgruntled employees before cases of varying degrees can go to court.

Mediation solutions focus on ways to improve the environment so that issues can be resolved and hopefully not be repeated, rather than covering up issues or trying to make them go away by throwing more money at them.

Workplace Conflict Resolution discusses some of these issues and statistics, giving you some foresight into solving these problems when they arise in your workplace.

Introducing Dale Dauten

2009-10-07T19:33:00.001-07:00

Dale Dauten is one of the founding partners of Agreement House and is the head of the business mediation branch.

Dale has worked with the Maricopa County mediation program for over 20 years, has served as President of the HOA for Circle G Ranches in Tempe, AZ, served on Tempe’s Planning & Zoning Commission for six years and completed a number of mediations for Arizona’s Registrar of Contractors. Dale understands the rigors of mediation in general, and specifically with regard to home owners associations, contractors and residents.

His partners, attorneys John Zarzynski and Georgia Wilder, also provide legal and financial coverage to ensure that every aspect of the drafted contract is legal and complete.

To set an appointment with Dale to mediate your business or neighborhood dispute, call him at 480-496-2201 or visit Agreement House.

Introducing Agreement House

2009-10-07T19:17:00.000-07:00

Agreement House is a company in Ahwatukee, Arizona that brings attorneys, mediators and document preparers together to provide the best possible mediation, contract development and dispute resolution in the workplace, for HOAs and other business and neighborhood disputes.

For more information about Arizona Business Conflict Negotiation and Mediation Resolution visit us at AgreementHouse.com

Agreement House also provides lawyers and mediators for comprehensive, mediated divorce procedures. Visit AgreementHouse.com for more information on Arizona Divorce Mediation.