Norman Solovay Bio
Norman Solovay chairs the Alternative Dispute Resolution practice, recently established as part of the firm's response to the growing disaffection among clients with the costs, length and risks of litigation, and fueled by the belief that cooperative means of resolving disputes are often better suited to a clients' needs and interests than the rigors of litigation.
Mr. Solovay has for years been a leading proponent and practitioner of various forms of alternative dispute resolution and is a recognized leader in the effort to educate the Bar as to new, evolving and emerging dispute resolution techniques. He is trained in and an active practitioner of mediation, arbitration, collaborative law, the use of settlement counsel, early neutral evaluation and med-arb. He acts as both a neutral and as counsel to parties who seek to take advantage of settlement-driven dispute resolution processes.
After earning his credentials in the field acting as a mediator and arbitrator in numerous domestic and international matters (including one much cited matter said to be the longest running and most expensive arbitration the AAA had conducted until that time), he authored several books in the field, including Using Arbitration in Commercial Disputes published by Matthew Bender and the most recent, published by the New York Law Journal press, entitled The Internet and Alternate Dispute Resolution: Untangling the Web. He is a frequent organizer, chair and presenter at CLE programs on various topics in the field of ADR, the most recent of which, entitled Collaborative Law & Med-Arb and How They Can Enhance Your Practice, was sponsored by the New York City Bar Association's Alternate Dispute Resolution Committee of which he is presently a member.
Mr. Solovay comes to McLaughlin & Stern after a long and successful career as a litigator turned champion of alternative dispute resolution practice. After receiving his B.A. degree from Cornell, Mr. Solovay, served as a Lieutenant in the Korean War and thereafter attended Columbia Law School where he was an editor of the Columbia Law Review. He joined the Rosenman, Colin firm as a litigation associate right out of law school but left after several years because he thought the firm — then 45 lawyers — was too large. After a stint as a full-time antitrust lawyer, he left to serve as a law secretary to then Justice Charles D. Breitel at the Appellate Division, First Department.
Mr. Solovay thereafter joined the then 15-lawyer firm of Holtzmann, Wise & Shepard, and formed and for 17 years headed its litigation department. As the firm grew to 45 lawyers, and his litigation department to 15, he handled an unusually wide variety of matters in the role of general counsel to the Onassis interests and the investment banking firm of Allen & Company, as well as to a number of large corporations financed by Allen & Company, such as Syntex, Bunker Ramo, Ogden, and others, along with a steady diet of commercial litigations, including several significant securities and antitrust matters. He was introduced to arbitration through the firm's managing partner who was the Chairman of the American Arbitration Association at the time, and thus began his work in and ongoing dedication to the field of alternative dispute resolution.
Mr. Solovay's role as Chair of McLaughlin & Stern's alternate dispute resolution practice serves to assure, in connection with disputes where the firm has been retained, that out of court settlement possibilities have been explored wherever feasible before moving ahead with court proceedings. He views a vital part of that assignment to be matching the client and the dispute with the most appropriate form of alternate dispute resolution, whether it be mediation, arbitration, settlement counsel, early neutral evaluation and/or other still evolving and increasingly popular modalities such as collaborative law and med-arb. He envisions the practice growing to attract clients who, from the outset, are looking for more cooperative forms of dispute resolution, be it corporate counsel seeking to contain litigation costs, or private individuals who wish to avoid the emotional stress of litigation.