David P. Gorman, Attorney

I first became involved in construction matters when I worked as a law clerk in the United States Department of Agriculture Regional General Counsel's office in Missoula, Montana during law school. I had the opportunity to participate in the trial and briefing of a number of construction contract claims before the Agriculture Board of Contract Appeals. In the early part of my legal career I had the opportunity to represent construction contractors as part of general practice. From that point my career began to evolve toward specialization. For several years I practiced as a sole practitioner with my practice focused exclusively on research and brief writing for large and small firms. During this time I authored or contributed to more than 35 appellate briefs and numerous briefs in pre-trial and post-trial practice.

In 1988 I was offered a position as principal appellate attorney in a firm which was devoted exclusively to representing members of the construction industry. Since that time I have devoted the vast majority of my practice to construction-related matters. I have represented businesses in virtually every phase of the construction industry - public and private owners, sureties, insurers, developers, architects, engineers, construction managers, design-builders, general contractors, specialty contractors, subcontractors and material suppliers. This broad range of clientele has provided me with the perspective to enable me to give the most effective representation to my core group of clients, commercial and public work general contractors. Within this group, I number clients which range from multinational E/P/C entities, through regional ENR 400 contractors, to local niche general contractors in both building and highway/heavy construction. The perspective that comes from representing the entire spectrum of construction entities enables me to advise my clients on how to structure their relationships with the other members of the contracting team to enhance the probability of success in projects, and how to position themselves to reduce their exposure if a project encounters trouble. The properly educated client recognizes that consulting legal counsel before problems arise is more cost effective than turning to counsel to extricate them from existing trouble. To assist my clients in this area I stay current with the standard contract documents of the AIA, AGC, EJCDC and DBIA. This enables me to advise clients on which documents are the best fit for the relationship they envision, and what modifications are desirable to achieve their contractual goals. In particular I work with my clients and the documents to make sure that risk allocation is handled reasonably and with a view toward promoting the health of the construction industry as a whole.

The fact that construction professionals are more sensitive to the real costs of litigation has led to a change in my role as an adviser and advocate over the last decade. Where once an attorney might simply take a problem and move immediately to full-blown litigation, the reality of the construction industry today is that attorneys are expected to resolve disputes as early and as non-confrontationally as possible. While I still regard myself as a litigator, and have had an active practice in both state and federal courts, my approach to disputes has become one of finding and reducing the areas of contention at the earliest possible stage, and then engaging in the alternative dispute resolution techniques that are most likely to lead to cost-effective resolution. Sometimes this involves arbitration, and I am actively involved in the American Arbitration Association both as an arbitrator and as counsel for parties. More often I advocate less formal processes such as mediation and other forms of facilitated negotiations. Mediation is not always successful, no dispute resolution process is, but it is particularly effective in situations where the participants in a dispute expect or hope to work with each other again and do not want to risk the entrenched bitterness that often results from formal dispute resolution processes like litigation or arbitration.

When alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are not successful, I can draw on twenty years of experience in all phases of litigation in federal and state courts, before agency boards of contract appeals and before arbitration tribunals where I have litigated numerous matters. Sheehan, Sheehan & Stelzner has a skilled and professional staff to support its construction litigation. We have experience in the latest techniques for document and data management, and make a concerted effort to apply the proper case management techniques to each matter on an individualized basis with a focus on quickly developing the key facts that will lead to resolution of the disputes.

• Neal & Company Inc. v. United States 1991