Southern California Arbitration Mediation and Conflict Resolution : Settle it Now Dispute Resolution Services : Serving Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Century City : Settle It Now Negotiation Blog

For more hilarious law cartoons by the fabulous Charles Fincher, click here.

Yesterday, I had the distinct pleasure of speaking to, and then participating in a mock mediation with, Lisa Klerman's USC Law School Mediation Clinic students.

Among these bright, energetic, earnest law students are some who would like to make mediation a career before a period of sufferance in the rights and remedies business.  It always saddens me to be reminded that we "law elders" do not routinely make it clear to our young apprentices that the business and society of the law is as broad, exciting and varied as their own imaginations can make it.  In other words, I encourage young people to do with their law degree whatever the heck they like, including mediating disputes.  They need only understand that they are choosing an entrepreneurial rather than an institutional path.  They are breaking new ground.

What does this have to do with negotiation?  Our ability to negotiate our first post-law school employment opportunities or to end a hostage crisis is embedded in, supported by, and impossible without, a society governed by the rule of law.   

Because I don't have a lot of time to explore this topic this morning, I'm cannibalizing my own work to ground both myself and my readers in the topic "culture and the law."   We'll be returning often to this theme many times over the next several months.  

This item is from YouTube and the Law:  What it is or What it Will Be

Culture and consumers precede the law. They rarely, if ever, conform themselves to the needs, interests and desires of business. Culture and consumers govern business. Business does not govern them.

The law follows culture. As we noted over at the IP ADR Blog in Disputing Humor: Comedy, Folkways and the Internet, "the law" is not just a set of rules, but a life condition "in which [people] are carriers of rights and duties, privileges and immunities."

No formal structure supporting the system of law need be visible. . . Law can be found any place and any time that a group gathers together to pursue an objective. The rules, open or covert, by which they govern themselves, and the methods and techniques by which these rules are enforced is the law of the group. Judged by this broad standard, most law-making is too ephemeral to be even noticed. /*

In other words, we govern ourselves more or less naturally, until a conflict within the group arises. When that happens, the group is "forced to decide between conflicting claims [and the] law arises in an overt and relatively conspicuous fashion. The challenge forces decision, and decisions make law." Id.

*/ See, Weyrauch and Bell, Autonomous Lawmaking: The Case of the "Gypsies" (1993) 103 Yale L.J. 323 (1993) quoting Thomas A. Cowan & Donald A. Strickland, The Legal Structure of a Confined Microsociety (University of California, Berkeley Working Paper No. 34, 1965). The Weyrauch book on Gypsy Law can be found here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

O.K.  Big confession.  In 25 years of legal practice, I never developed a book a business.  Not one page.  Not even a post-it note.  Which puts me in mind of a Hugh (Gaping Void) McLeod drawing.

Other than to urge you to run right out and buy Dr. Tammy Lenski's new book Making Mediation Your Day Job I parrot once again Mr. McLeod's platinum advice for making your own rain (which, shhhhhhhhhhh, the rain maker's big secret -- it's often way more fun than practicing law!)  

Review of Making Mediation Your Day Job next.

So you want to be more creative, in art, in business, whatever. Here are some tips that have worked for me over the years:

1. Ignore everybody.

2. The idea doesn't have to be big. It just has to be yours.

3. Put the hours in.

4. If your biz plan depends on you suddenly being "discovered" by some big shot, your plan will probably fail.

5. You are responsible for your own experience.

6. Everyone is born creative; everyone is given a box of crayons in kindergarten.

7. Keep your day job.

8. Companies that squelch creativity can no longer compete with companies that champion creativity.

9. Everybody has their own private Mount Everest they were put on this earth to climb.

10. The more talented somebody is, the less they need the props.

11. Don't try to stand out from the crowd; avoid crowds altogether.

12. If you accept the pain, it cannot hurt you.

13. Never compare your inside with somebody else's outside.

14. Dying young is overrated.

15. The most important thing a creative person can learn professionally is where to draw the red line that separates what you are willing to do, and what you are not.

16. The world is changing.

17. Merit can be bought. Passion can't.

18. Avoid the Watercooler Gang.

19. Sing in your own voice.

20. The choice of media is irrelevant.

21. Selling out is harder than it looks.

22. Nobody cares. Do it for yourself.

23. Worrying about "Commercial vs. Artistic" is a complete waste of time.

24. Don't worry about finding inspiration. It comes eventually.

25. You have to find your own schtick.

26. Write from the heart.

27. The best way to get approval is not to need it.

28. Power is never given. Power is taken.

29. Whatever choice you make, The Devil gets his due eventually.

30. The hardest part of being creative is getting used to it.

31. Remain frugal.

32. Allow your work to age with you.

33. Being Poor Sucks.

34. Beware of turning hobbies into jobs.

35. Savor obscurity while it lasts.

36. Start blogging. [see Why Every Client Should Want an Attorney Who Blogs here and the advice to "keep it quiet!" here)

The entire "must read" blog post can be found by  clicking here (pdf) or here.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

If you're a writer -- you know -- of fiction -- and you somewhat compulsively track your blog statistics because, well, you don't smoke cigarettes anymore, your blogging day doesn't start any better than this.

Search google.com (sue step mother for wrongful death) 

The mind reels with the possibilities.  But I have paperwork to do.  

The video, for those with procrastination in mind, takes about as long to watch as stepping outside to smoke a cigarette would.  And "stop smoking" was one of your New Year's resolutions, right?

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There's a good discussion about mediator neturality and the giving of legal advice during mediations going on over at Chris Annunziata's CKA mediation blog. 

Here's what they taught me at the Straus Institute:  neutral doesn't mean you don't come filled with opinions, ideas, leanings, prejudices and the like.  It just means:

1. you don't subjectively favor one party over the other; and,
2. you endeavor not to engage in any practices that would objectively favor one party over the other.

Easy to say.  Not always so easy to do.

Couldn't resist the Fincher cartoon.  Buy your lawyer Festivus presents over at Mug the Judge carrying LawComix like this.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Cartoon courtesy of Charles Fincher, who is selling his priceless legal humor on coffee mugs at Mug the Judge this holiday season. 

Click here to find the best stocking stuffer around for the lawyer on your holiday shopping list.

Advertisement over.  Post begins:

Check out Decision Quest's recent article Jury Research: Shift the Paradigm, Rethink the Science by Stuart Miles, Ph.D., Senior Director at Louisville.

I almost tried a half-dozen "bet the company cases" and tried one to jury verdict using the services of jury consultants, focus groups, and trial graphic experts.  In every single one of those cases I wished I'd used a jury consultant earlier.  

That said, here's an excerpt of Dr. Miles article.  Click on the link above for the full article. 

 
Research is not just for cases that don’t settle - it can actually help to settle cases in your favor. Many attorneys think of jury research as final preparation before a case goes to trial or as a "last stage" of gathering information. Such thinking often arises if the research is viewed only as a form of trial strategy – but jury research can be a great deal more than that. To get the most return on an investment in research, it often helps to understand the broader value of research at different stages in the development of a case.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

. . . with the usual groveling thanks to charles fincher of lawcomix for the generous giving of permission to use his brilliant and hilarious cartoons . . . . 

. . . to be fair, the final round contestants were all ridiculously well-prepared, articulate, bright, thorough and just generally the kind of young people you'd hoped would one day be in charge of the world . . .

. . . it's just that the ABA rules apparently require them to be very very very very very NICE . . . .  

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

 

(left:  author/illustrator Rutu Modan)

I urge you to CLICK HERE IMMEDIATELY for the most extreme and hilarious family "negotiation" (read:  manipulation) tactics ever to flow from a pen (with marvelous illustrations) from a Blog you'll immediately want to add to your Blogroll:  Mixed Emotions by Rutu Modan.

This is a New York Times Blog (don't worry, fellow amateurs, the BigBloggers have to appeal to a much wider audience) which describes its author as follows:

Rutu Modan, an illustrator and comic book creator, is a chosen artist of the Israel Cultural Excellence Foundation. She has done comic strips for the Israeli newpapers Yedioth Acharonot and Ma’ariv and illustrations for The New Yorker, Le Monde, The New York Times and many other publications. Her first graphic novel, Exit Wounds, will be published in June. Ms. Modan, usually based in Tel Aviv, is currently in Sheffield, England.

Mixed Emotions is translated by Jesse Mishori. 

And if you want to off-set this dark whimsey with a little practical know-how from the smartest guys in the room, here's the Harvard Business School Working Knowledge article, Five Steps to Better Family Negotiations.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Thank you to our friend Alicia Freundlich, a Straus LL.M candidate, for passing along this case summary copied verbatim from the Newsletter of the Business Law Section of the State Bar of California.  

(right)  More serious balloon popping by the ever popular Charles Fincher of LawComix.com, who every so graciously lets me use these fabulous lawyer cartoons for free.  Do support him by paying cold hard cash for a signed copy, or better yet, a custom-made print for your favorite partner, judge, client, administrator, legal assistant, or associate.

COURT UPHOLDS ARBITRATOR’S ABILITY TO USE “MULTIPLE INCREMENTAL OR SUCCESSIVE AWARD PROCESS” AS A MEANS OF FINALLY DECIDING ALL ISSUES

Roehl v. Ritchie

2007 DJDAR 1480, 2007 Cal App LEXIS 125  (Ct. App. 4TH Dist. 1/31/2007)

This case arose from a dispute between the sons of a decedent and his second wife over distribution of the estate. The dispute was arbitrated and the arbitrator issued an award on March 1, 2004 concerning most of the issues in controversy. Among other things, he ruled that the wife had a 75% interest in the decedent’s home and that the sons had a 25% interest, which should be distributed to them because the wife was still living in the home.. The arbitrator indicated that the home was valued at $575,000 based on a November 2003 appraisal which covered the home and some other assets. He ruled that the appraisal would be the basis for distribution “unless the trustee determines that changes will be needed…if…in light of new developments since [November 2003], a somewhat different distribution of assets would benefit the estate” and he offered to work with the trustee to ”review any questions he may have concerning the orders and findings made by the arbitrator”.

The wife died one week after the award was issued. The wife’s niece, her successor in interest, successfully moved to confirm the award and that decision was affirmed on appeal in an unpublished decision. While the appeal was pending, the trustee petitioned the arbitrator for instructions on several issues, including whether to value the home as of the time of the award or as of the time of the distribution of the estate assets. In October 2005, the arbitrator issued a second award in which he, inter alia, valued the home at $1,050,000. Because this would lead to a larger distribution to the sons, the wife’s niece opposed confirmation of the award on the ground that this was a correction or amendment of the original award and thus beyond the arbitrator’s power because it occurred long after the time allowed to correct or amend.

The trial court confirmed the award, the niece appealed, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. It ruled that the arbitrator, by allowing for an opportunity by the trustee to amend the valuation, plainly left the matter of the value of the home up for future consideration if the trustee determined that changes were needed.

Note: It can sometimes be difficult for a party to discern whether an arbitrator is correcting an award, amending it, or issuing an incremental or successive award and that is what happened in this case. Code of Civil Procedure 1284 provides that a party must apply to the arbitrator for correction of an award no later than ten days after service of a signed copy of the award on the applicant, other parties must object within ten days after the application is delivered or mailed to them, and the arbitrator must issue any corrected award not later than thirty days after service of a signed copy of the award on the applicant.

But, in Delaney v. Dahl, 99 Cal App 4th 647, 659 (2002), the Court of Appeal held that an arbitrator may amend the award at any time prior to confirmation of the award so long as the amendment is consistent with other findings on the merits of the controversy and does not cause demonstrable prejudice to the interests of a party. And in Hightower v Superior Court, 86 Cal App 4th 1415, 1431 (2001), the Court of Appeal affirmed an arbitrator’s ability to use “a multiple incremental or successive award process as a means, in an appropriate case, of finally deciding all submitted issues”.

(emphasis my own)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

(for more of the brilliant Charles Fincher, Jr., see LawComix.com)

When I hear from my old litigation buddies that "all mediators do is divide by two" I am tempted to wander into the "hard sell" marketing zone I usually avoid.  Last night at the Los Angeles ABTL dinner, for instance, I runined my record of never overtly marketing my services by nakedly promoting myself in response to one such complaint.

For those litigators disappointed by the mediation services they receive, I'm supplying an executive summary (with commentary) of Harvard negotiation gurus Lax and Sebenius excellent article, "The Art of Getting the Best Deal."  

Don't Say "Yes, Yes, Yes," When You Really Mean "No, No, No, No, No."

As Lax and Sebenius stress, business people should only say "yes" to a deal that "meets [their] real interests better than [their] best no-deal option."  Mediators call the "no-deal" option your BATNA -- a Better Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement.

Let me reiterate:  there is no reason to say "yes" to any deal that is worse than no deal.  Ever.  Period.

Tell that to the mediator the next time you're feeling pressured to accept an offer or meet a demand that makes your client really really really unhappy.  Say, "I can do better at trial."  Say, "I can negotiate a better deal than that."  Say, "if I can't negotiate a better deal that that today, I'll approach the matter differently tomorrow."  Say, "I don't believe the best settlement is one that leaves everyone unhappy."  Say, "that's not what I promise my clients when they hire me."  Say, "I've read Lax and Sebenius."  Say, "good luck with your mediation career" and pack your bag.  Bow out nicely but firmly. 

Find the Deciders and Draw a Deal Diagram

A deal diagram is not a decision tree.  Decision trees are about legal strategy.  Business decisions are not driven by legal strategy.  Business decisions are driven by finance, markets, business needs, and, commercial realities.  Only lawyers are kept awake at night by legal dilemmas.  CEO's are concerned with mergers and acquisitions, S.E.C. reporting requirements and how a settlement with a competitor might affect stock prices.

So what's a "deal diagram"?  I'll let Lax and Sebenius explain:

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 (the incomparable Charles Fincher at LawComix.com)

I tell people to hell with charity, the only thing you'll get is what you're strong enough to get.   -- Saul Alinsky, labor and social activist 

This step by step guide is pretty much taken verbatim from MIT's Negotiation Basic's Web Page.  I do not differentiate between "distributive" and "integrative" techniques as does the MIT site; I have added links to key terms; and, I have added warnings flowing from my own negotiating history and mediation practice.   

Italicized text is my own.

A more lengthy and sophisticated guide, The Art of Getting the Best Deal by Harvard gurus Lax and Sebenuis can be accessed here.  Order their "must read" 3-D Negotiation NOW.

Step One

Figure out your own interests and reservation point (bottom line) by assessing your Best (and Worst) Alternatives to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA and WATNA). 

Keep reviewing these points while you negotiate.

Step Two

Figure out the interests and reservation point of the Other, remembering that a negotiator's belief about the other side's bottom line is a powerful driver of settlement, i.e., do not be fooled into believing you have hit the other party's bottom line until (and sometimes after) they begin packing up their briefcases to leave the negotiation.  

Be alert to new data while you negotiate, remembering that the attorneys representing the parties have organized the facts around their legal positions while the parties have organized the facts around their business needs. 

Business needs will always drive settlement more than legal positions will.  You may be hearing them for the first time.  If you are negotiating with the mediator, make sure the mediator is making the effort to ascertain the parties' interests and is not stuck on the parties' legal positions.  

Step Three :  Ascertaining the Zone of Possible Agreement

Seek to move the reservation point of the Other to widen the bargaining range especially if there is a negative range. (This process is often begun by "sowing doubt")  

However, if necessary for a settlement that you must achieve, move your own reservation point. 

Do, however, beware of thinking you "must achieve" a settlement above or below your "bottom line" whenever you are hungry, angry, lonely (i.e., feeling isolated) or tired (H.A.L.T.) 

Sticking to your bottom line is the best means of insuring you do not leave the negotiation believing you have put too much money or left too much money on the table. 

Sometimes you're better off not getting to "yes."  

Through judiciously shared information and brainstorming, seek to expand the pie so that each side may get as much as possible of what it would like.

Explore moving the reservation points of each side.

Step Four

Seek a settlement as close as possible to the reservation point of the Other so that you win the maximum profit.

Decide on fair principles and objective criteria to determine how to divide the pie.

Step Five

Do what you can to see that both you and the Other come to see this settlement as the best possible one under the circumstances. 

MIXED MOTIVE BARGAINING

In almost all negotiating situations you will have "mixed motives," where you wish to create values with your Other, and then to claim your share. In these situations you may use tactics common to both distributive and integrative strategies, or switch at least a little from one strategy to the other.

For example one would show respect at all times and be cautiously forthcoming about one's interests, share information as trust grows, be truthful and consistent, seek common ground and agreement on principle, generate as many options as possible, and in general pursue the integrative path as long as possible, while explicitly safeguarding you own interests. In many situations you will be able to expand the pie before having to divide it.

These ideas are drawn from the experience of the author and from Walton and McKersie, A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations, McGraw-Hill, 1965. They also owe much to the work of Roger Fisher and William Ury.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

(above, Charles Fincher's illustrative cartoon)  

I was talking to an attorney friend this morning about an upcoming mediation in a complex commercial case.  Lots and lots of $$$$$ at issue.  Last week -- a week before the mediation is set to convene --  his team scored a pre-trial victory on an eight figure issue.

If I'd had time to think about it, I'd have given him the mediation strategy advice he was already suggesting to himself.

DON'T GLOAT.

Aside from your mother's advice to never be a "bad winner" and your own certain knowledge that your shiny new pre-trial ruling can always be reversed, stifling your gloat-reflex will have at least two beneficial effects on your upcoming negotiation.  

1. your opponents' reflexive desire to retaliate by launching an all-out thermo-nuclear-legal attack will be quieted, if not eliminated; and,  
2. your opponents' ability to use their higher "executive" brain functions during the upcoming negotiations will be increased, soothing the fear and anger flight-fight mechanism of the  brain's reptilian amygdala, which, when triggered, overrides the sophisticated "executive" brain functions necessary to a successful high-stakes negotiation.

So, my friend had it right on the money this morning.  The hardest thing about the upcoming negotiation will be not to gloat.  

Make "not gloating" the center of your strategy, I replied, and you'll settle that multi-bazillion dollar case and make your corporate client truly happy.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I've been reading a lot about creativity lately because it is central to my practice as a mediator and central to the business opportunities of my commercial clients.  As Colin Powell says when speaking to business people, "to negotiate a deal, you need to be inside the other guy's decision cycle." 

Understanding the creative process in business is one of the ways I try to stay in my clients' "decision cycles." 

So why Juggling in a Cone? 

Two reasons.

HOPE AND CREATIVE SELF-EXPRESSION

First, it gives me hope for humankind.  That we follow the creative call and then spend hundreds (THOUSANDS?) of hours perfecting our heart's desire without realistic chance of material gain  makes me believe we WILL find solutions to global warming, tribal and border warfare, poverty and disease.  I can't help myself.  Juggling in a Cone makes me marvel, makes me laugh, lights up my world.

Second, Juggling in a Cone is all about exploring creativity with severe constraints.  There's not a lot of room in that cylinder.  Given its limitations, what might a juggler do?  Hit the play button and see if you're as enchanted as I am. 

TURNING LIMITATIONS INTO SOLUTIONS

In Turning Limitations into Solutions (the February online issue of Business Week) Marissa Ann Mayer, vice-president for search products and user experience at Google, says

Creativity is often misunderstood. People often think of it in terms of artistic work -- unbridled, unguided effort that leads to beautiful effect. If you look deeper, however, you'll find that some of the most inspiring art forms -- haikus, sonatas, religious paintings -- are fraught with constraints. They're beautiful because creativity triumphed over the rules. Constraints shape and focus problems, and provide clear challenges to overcome as well as inspiration. Creativity, in fact, thrives best when constrained.

Yet constraints must be balanced with a healthy disregard for the impossible. Disregarding the bounds of what we know or what we accept gives rise to ideas that are nonobvious, unconventional, or simply unexplored. The creativity realized in this balance between constraint and disregard for the impossible are fueled by passion and result in revolutionary change.

Having recently been turned on to cartoonist and copyrighter Hugh McLeod's Gaping Void comics (care of Geoff Sharp's eagle eye) I find that artists have been hip to the creativity-constraint principle for some time.  In McLeod's case, the constraint is the size of a business card.

In mediation practice -- the practice building part -- the constraint is generally expressed as a series of reasons one can't make a living at it -- the pro bono panel distorts the market, I'm not a judge, I'm too young, I did transacitonal work, I came to the market too late, there are too many mediators in Los Angeles, the commercial panels have the market all tied up, etc., etc., etc.

If we use these constraints rather than complain about them, we might find ourselves, well, juggling in a cone.

For excellent advice from an artist about pursuing your heart's desire, go to the extended entry, Advice on Being Creative .  I took the time to read this in full yesterday -  a highly worthwhile time commitment.  I recommend it to anyone searching for a solution to the intractable problem of "what are we to do with our one and only lives?" 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

E! Online reports in Michael Richards' Mea Culpa Mediation that the former Seinfeld star and local comedian will meet with the African-American comedy club patrons "whose heckling triggered the racist rant heard round the world."

The men's attorney, Gloria Allred, said a local judge will facilitate a meeting to help the parties resolve the dispute, apparently to open with a "personal apology for [Mr. Richard's] behavior."   

The value of apology in resolving litigation or preventing suit in the first instance remains a matter of controversy among ADR professionals and scholars alike.  

The most thorough and thoughtful article I have read on the issue is Apology Subverted:  The Commodification of Apology.  The article's author, Lee Taft, argues that apology loses its moral force if used as a bargaining chip, particularly where the transgressor is protected from liability for his admission of wrongdoing.

See also Marlynn Wei's 2006 article, Doctors, Apologies and the Law, an Analysis and Critique of Apology Laws from the Yale Law School Student Scholarship Series and Erin O'Hara's Apologies and Thick Trust -- What Spouse Abusers and Negligent Doctors Might Have in Common , which I've blogged about earlier here and here.   

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I won $200 at Morongo recently, accompanying my husband to one of his law firm's business development events. I always think gambling (excuse me, gaming) outings are good for lawyers and business people -- the litigation risk- taking analogies being so plentiful.

The lesson from this trip, however, was not about sunk costs or risk aversion. It was about my own subjective experience of money.

"Don't worry," I was saying to Mr. Thrifty, as I pulled three twenties from my wallet to pay for an afternoon gourmet picnic in Griffith Park. "I'm paying for it with the casino's money."

Thrifty gently reminded me that this was the third time I'd spent my winnings --the first on that spa visit before I hit the gaming floor; the second on a few Crate and Barrel essentials we picked up at the outlet stores so conveniently located next to the hotel; and, the third for our picnic in the park. Actually, by the time we were collecting our food tickets, I'd also "spent" my unexpected windfall on the gift I'd planned to buy for my father's birthday the following week. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Trusting Your Adversary's Bottom Line

It was 7 o'clock on a mid-summer evening and the HMO's representative was packing up his brief case. "I appreciate your hard work," he was saying, "but I simply don't have the authority to compromise any further."

Though we'd only met that morning, I was inclined to believe him because he'd played straight with me throughout the day. Still, no one ever tells you their true bottom line and the number from which Mr. HMO refused to budge seemed odd to me. $124,000. It didn't feel like impasse.

The facts were simple and undisputed. The HMO made bookkeeping errors. As a result, they overpaid Dr. X $200,000 during the previous three years. Dr. X had no good defense to repayment other than an allegedly failing practice and general lack of assets. Business reverses. Divorce. That sort of thing.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks