THE QUESTIONS ARE WRITTEN BELOW. PLS COPY THE QUESTIONS ON THE YELLOW PAPER. 1. Mr.

Jan Schlichtmann (John Travolta), attorney-at-law, said:

"The whole idea of (filing civil) lawsuits is to settle, to compel the other side to settle. And you do that by spending more money than you should, which forces them to spend more money than they should. Whoever comes to his senses first, loses. Trials are a corruption of the entire process. And only fools with something to prove end up ensnared in them. And when I say prove, I don't mean about the case. I mean about themselves." WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO OR OPINION ABOUT THIS STATEMENT. 2. In the end, Mr. Schlichtmann and his partners had to settle for so much less. They were not happy, they actually lost even their office assets. Their clients felt even more wretched than them; they had lost their kids, they did not get what they want from those responsible, and they did not want any money - though the pittance they got only added insult to injury. Eventually, he uncovered more evidence that would have made their position stronger while the case was still pending. However, by this time, the trial was over, and appeal was not an available option. Besides, Mr. Schlichtmann had no more money, no more partners. Left with no choice, he wrote to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about the chemical contamination of the Woburn water source. (a) What was the EPA able to do, if any? (b) Would you consider this an a form of ADR? Had seeking the help of the EPA really been a "last choice"? What possible scenario can you think of, had Mr. Schlichtmann turned to the EPA at the onset instead of filing a civil suit?

FENDER RHODES B. LUMBATAN Alternative Dispute Resolution Judge M. Bernales 1. I agree with the statement. It encapsulated the idea on the reality of what really happens in the process of a full blown civil trial as far as financial consumption is concerned. The statement presented the image on how a civil trial works, like a parasite feeding on its host until it(host) becomes inutile. Inarguably, a civil action is costly to the extent that parties are made to spend or receive compensation more or less than they meritoriously deserved, in short it is a LOSE- LOSE situation, notwithstanding the award of damages to the aggrieved party. In essence, it is a victory on paper. This line struck me: Trials are a corruption of the entire process. And only fools with something to prove end up ensnared in them. And when I say prove, I don't mean about the case. I mean about themselves." .In my point of view, litigants to a civil suit are like victims of a quicksand wherein they allow themselves to be engulfed in the trap notwithstanding the warning for the sole reason of feeding their egos and the pride it brings on who proves to be THE better man. For lawyers, at all cost, winning is a leverage in terms of prestige and social acceptability but I have these words for them: You may call yourselves good and cunning lawyers, but I wish you were a better person. 2. The Environmental Protection Agency had took notice of Mr. Schlichtmanns plea and eventually considered the merits of the same to the point of filing an environmental suit against W. R. Grace Leather Company and Beatrice Foods. The companies, faced with the prospect of returning to court, agrees to pay their share in clean-up costs. With this, is a manifestation of settling the dispute alternatively, where the companies agreed to pull out dollars from their pockets to do away from the tedious, strenuous and demanding court process. The concern was resolved outside court and the victims families gained the sense of vicarious victory in so far as advancing the cause of their children whose death were a testament to the respective industries negligence and imprudence in terms of waste handling. Seeking the aid of the Environmental Protection Agency should NOT have been the last resort in this case. At the beginning, it was a clear case of environmental hazard and primordially, it belongs to the proper agency (EPA in this case) whose proficiency lies in handling cases within its realm of expertise. If it werent for Mr. John Schlichtmanns interest for money at the onset of the case, things would not have turned out unfavourable on his side(finances, resources, his investments and literally all that he have). His obsession on the case was an uncalled afterthought that eventually consumed him and his profession. If Mr. Schlichtmann had referred the same to the EPA at the very start, the matter would have been resolved the earliest time possible without cost to his self and his firm and he would not have to spend almost all of his investments on the said case alone. More so, the families of the victims would have had justice in the real sense of the word at the earliest opportunity.