Lawyers Must Stop Treating Workplace Conflict Like a Paperwork Problem

When a workplace dispute reaches a lawyer, the most important question is not “What law applies?” It is “What happened to these people?” Lawyers who ignore that question may protect a client on paper while leaving the organization exposed to a much larger problem.

I say this as a mediator who has sat with people in workplace disputes, divorces, inheritance battles, and other conflicts where the facts matter, but the human story matters more. By the time someone calls a lawyer, they are often angry, frightened, embarrassed, or desperate to be heard. The conflict did not begin when the demand letter arrived.

This distinction matters in the workplace. When a company terminates someone, the instinct is often to shut down communication, route everything through legal, and focus on protecting the company from liability. Lawyers then review legal releases, separation agreements, confidentiality provisions, and other documents. That work is necessary. But it can become dangerously narrow when the underlying conflict is never examined.

A lawyer’s job is not simply to help a client win the immediate dispute. It is to help the client understand the risks created by the way the dispute is handled. If an employee leaves feeling humiliated, silenced, or professionally damaged, a drafted agreement may not end the conflict. It may simply move the conflict somewhere else. 

The consequences are substantial. Poor communication accounts for 52% of workplace conflict incidents, while such conflict is associated with an estimated $359 billion in lost time for U.S. businesses. Additionally, 85% of employees experience workplace conflict, and unresolved conflict can reduce productivity. These figures should make lawyers pay attention, because the legal dispute is only one slice of the damage.

The higher costs appear afterward. A talented employee leaves, a manager spends months dealing with fallout, and colleagues start comparing stories. Beyond that, absenteeism rises, and recruiting begins again, while friends and professional contacts hear about how the employee was treated. The organization’s reputation changes one conversation at a time.

This is where the human element becomes a company’s kryptonite. You can restrict what a departing employee may say in a contract, but you cannot control every person who hears the story. People talk. They talk to former colleagues, friends, mentors, recruiters, and potential employees. If they believe someone was treated unfairly, that perception can travel far beyond the original dispute.

I have seen another pattern emerge repeatedly. Organizations address the surface issue while ignoring the conflict underneath it. An employee complains. Management responds to the specific allegation. Lawyers assess exposure. A document gets signed. Everyone declares the matter finished.

But what actually happened? Was the employee ignored for months? Did a manager create an environment where people were afraid to speak? Was communication so poor that a manageable disagreement became personal? Did leadership ever ask the people involved what they needed to move forward?

Those questions are not distractions from the legal work. They are part of understanding the risk.

Lawyers are uniquely positioned to force this conversation because clients listen to them when the stakes become high. That influence creates a responsibility. If the same workplace problems keep producing disputes, the answer cannot always be another clause, another policy, or another settlement. Sometimes the client needs to examine its management practices before the next employee calls a lawyer.

The alternative is different. Imagine a company that treats offboarding as a human process as well as a legal one. Management communicates clearly. Employees can ask questions. Lawyers identify legal exposure while also pressing leaders to understand the conflict. Departing employees leave with dignity, colleagues retain trust, and the company spends its energy building the future instead of managing the wreckage of the past.

That is not idealism. It is risk management.

My call to lawyers is simple. Before you finalize the release, ask your client what happened before the dispute became legal. Ask who was hurt, who stopped talking, what the organization failed to hear, and whether the same conditions could create another dispute tomorrow.

Protecting a client means more than defending its position. It means helping the client stop creating the conditions that require defending in the first place.

About the Author 

Alice Shikina is an award‑winning mediator, arbitrator, speaker, negotiation coach, and author based in Oakland, California. As the founder of Shikina Mediation and Arbitration, she helps individuals and organizations navigate conflict, strengthen communication, and build trust. Her background in theater and mediation gives her a distinctive ability to read emotional dynamics, understand subtext, and guide productive negotiation. In 2025, she received the Visionary Peacemaker Award from Community Boards in San Francisco.

Some of the source material for this article may come from external sources. The article has been reviewed by a National Law Review editor. This article may be licensed for reuse."