Jeremy uses Guided Choice ADR techniques and has an outcome-focused and holistic approach, which is flexible and adaptable to a broad range of cross-cultural and international commercial disputes. He seeks to ensure that the parties have a common understanding of any mediation process that is used (which can vary significantly country-by-country), to tailor any ADR processes to take into account the parties' perceived procedural needs and their future business interests, and to jointly select one or more neutrals as may be appropriate, and depending on the type of dispute resolution process chosen. Jeremy tries to ensure that he understands the client's legal positions, facts and interests. He then conducts a future-oriented assessment process to clearly identify the client's interests, needs, concerns, motivations and pre-occupations looking forward, seeking to understand the rational, emotional and social drivers involved in the dispute. He also conducts an assessment of the conflict's propensity to escalate, and his client's expectations and constraints regarding the time, costs, award, consequences and likely impact of the clients's various alternatives (BATNA/WATNA/PATNA). A similar analysis is done using a perspective-taking analysis approach to assess the positions and interests of the client's partners in the dispute or negotiations and their counsel. With this analysis completed, anti-escalation measures are assessed and discussed and a strategy is formed and implemented, taking into account the procedural needs and concerns of all of the parties involved in the dispute. This can involve a traditional negotiation, mediation, or conciliation process, or a combination thereof, sometimes in parallel, separate from or integrated into any arbitration and/or muti-jurisdictional litigation proceedings (e.g., in MED-CON, ARB-MED, MED//ARB, MEDALOA and other guided choice proceedings). He works with co-counsel and co-counsel to design a mutually acceptable dispute resolution process and strategy and at times advises on the creation of hybrid processes to generate faster, cheaper and better outcomes, whereby the client can retain greater control over its costs and any outcome. This often involves working closely with counsel for the client's litigation partners to set mutually acceptable checks and balances, which foster a cooperative settlement spirit between the parties and their counsel, despite the possible existence of previously acrimonious or adversarial exchanges. This also sometimes involves acting as a Collaborative or Cooperative Lawyer, or as a quasi-collaborative/cooperative, agreeing to forego using or providing any information or knowledge obtained in the negotiation process in any future litigation or arbitration proceedings, should the matter not settle. This is discussed on a case-by-case basis, with the client's prior knowledge and written consent.