ADR in the public arena poses special challenges with one not present in private litigation. Summit Solutions is uniquely qualified to assist both sides in resolving disputes with government agencies. Similar challenges arise in large class actions involving corporate defendants.

Summit Solutions is uniquely qualified to assist both sides in resolving such disputes and, of equal importance, in securing and monitoring implementation of complex decrees, whether they require adjudication of individual claims or structural change.

In these cases, the individual or group claimant/plaintiff may be seeking multifacted and systemic change in official policies, regulations, practices or funding mechanisms. It may be necessary for the parties to negotiate rule changes, to amend or create new approaches to structural or budget problems, and to address the needs of one, a few or many thousands of people.

Such litigation, if taken through the courts, typically costs the parties collectively hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in fees, expenses and time. After a protracted pretrial process, parties often either negotiate a settlement (often hurriedly under the pressure of a trial schedule) or they submit the case to judicial decision which may be inadequate to establish the delicate balance which will satisfy both sides.

Once a settlement or decree is reached, it often needs to be monitored for compliance with its terms and, sometimes, adjusted in light of the parties’ experience. Interpretive or other post-decision disputes may arise.

David Ferleger, principal of Summit Solutions, has thirty-two years of experience in resolving precisely this sort of dispute. In a written decision in a lawsuit by the United States against the State of Connecticut, a federal district judge describes Mr. Ferleger as “a skilled judicial adjunct who has served the Court with balance and with fairness to the parties.” (June 24, 2003) (United States v. State of Connecticut).

For decades, Mr. Ferleger has been a full participant in three critical roles, constructing amicable solutions in each. He has been the judiciary's decision-maker (special master in one case for seven years, and a court monitor in another), plaintiff's counsel in multiple class actions, and state government's counsel in five major class actions and in enfocement proceedings. He has presided over evidentiary hearings, developed policies and systems with agencies and their opposing parties, and facilitated settlement of myriad disputes.