About Us

Victoria Pynchon

As the co-founder of She Negotiates Consulting and Training, I offer my services as a keynote speaker, trainer and consultant....

She Mediates

ADR Services, Inc.

She Negotiates

She Negotiates

The 33 cent wage and income gap is unacceptable and unnecessary. So is the cliché glass ceiling. Bottom line, our...

Our Close the Gap App Arrives in Time for Equal Pay Day

Close the Gap App™ (sponsored by GoDaddy) is a powerful online tool that takes you on a guided deep dive into your career path. It's like having your very own career or business coach on your desktop or mobile device.

Collaboratively designed by She Negotiates' co-founders Lisa Gates and Victoria Pynchon, and author and leadership expert Gloria Feldt of Take the Lead, you can now close that pesky wage and leadership gap for good.

You'll start by capturing your education, experience, strengths and accomplishments, and then you'll build on that by defining your short and longterm goals.

Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 1.15.57 PM.png

You'll redefine your relationship with power and learn to navigate the typical roadblocks standing in your way and chart your course as the CEO of your own life.

You'll also learn how to create career narratives or stories to help you ace your interviews and present yourself with clarity and authority.

Then you'll assess your network and support systems and build your relationships strategically with an Influence Plan.

The shared goal of Take the Lead and She Negotiates is to eliminate the wage and leadership gap by 2025. With the skill-building exercises and videos in The Gap App, you won't be waiting until 2025. In the short time it takes to complete the App you'll research your market value, learn the necessary strategies to negotiate it, and close your wage gap now.

After completing the APP, you can join Take the Lead's community of women, powered by Mightybell. So, if you're ready to kickstart your career or business, join a brilliant community of women who are getting it done. And for 10 bucks, there is nothing standing in your way.

Top kudos and credit goes to Kendra Grant of Kendra Grant Consulting who served as our Learning Architect and Project Lead, and Josh Hoover of WP Bench who built and coded the App with his head, heart and hands.


Getting the Other Guy to the Negotiation Table


This just in from Harvard's Program on Negotiation:

In a new study, Nour Kteily of Northwestern University and his colleagues found that low-power groups can influence powerful parties to engage with them through their framing of the proposed negotiating agenda. Specifically, across four experiments, participants in the high-power position were more willing to negotiate when a low-power group proposed negotiating less important issues before more significant areas of disagreement, rather than vice versa. This preference is the opposite of what low-power parties prefer, the researchers learned.

For mediators and group facilitators, the lesson is to assure the parties or the organization that you're going to move in baby-steps from the least controversial issues to the most. Most mediators already know that when the group or parties are able to resolve minor issues, their hope for resolution of the major issues increases. By structuring the negotiation, mediation or group experience from easy to "hard" the parties also begin to master conflict resolution "best practices" with the guidance of the mediator or facilitator.

As Ken Cloke reminded a roomful of mediators at the Straus Institute during the SCMA's Annual Conference this past Saturday, we should avoid the temptation to solve the central problem in dsipute before the people who have the problem are ready to solve it. We press the parties forward toward premature resolution at our peril.

What to Do When Negotiation Turns to Squabbling

Negotiators—whether politicians or homebuyers—begin with bold concessions which rapidly shrink the gulf between opposing sides. But like curves approaching an asymptote in geometry, as they near an agreement they level off and struggle to bridge the final, though trivial, gap. The effect of their ongoing quarreling is that, by the end, their motivating goal is not so much to strike a deal or make a sale as to make the other side yield, on no matter how minor a point. The fact of winning a concession matters more than the concession's substance. Not who yields most, but who yields last, appears to lose. The negotiation grows more bitter, the less remains at stake.

(Thanks to friend Rex Stevens for passing this along from the Aphorisms and Paradoxes blog.)

I was over at White & Case* last week talking to its women about the perils of negotiation without the inclusion of face-saving mechanisms. As I told them, it's a common mediation experience for the parties to make concessions in the millions to tens of millions of dollars only to reach final impasse over which side is going to pay the mediation fee ($5K) they'd agreed to split before the session began.

That's not about money, it's about face.

We call this end stage simply the final impasse but when the end stage stretches out into a seemingly endless future, we call it a "hurting stalemate" which is what we've got in Washington right now.

So how do you break an impasse that may or may not turn into a hurting stalemate?

First of all, you ask yourself and then, if possible, your bargaining partner, what hasn't yet been put on the table. Parties often reach impasse because they're attempting to achieve a hidden goal that they believe their negotiation demand will achieve or help achieve. It's been suggested, for instance, that shutting the government down and then re-opening only those agencies that the Republican party would like to see functioning is not a bad consequence of the parties' failure to reach agreement, but a hidden goal. If you take a look at the list of agencies shut down, you'll see there at least half of the GOP target list for ending or lessening government regulation. The Department of Education. The Environmental Protection Agency. And that department Rick Perry couldn't recall was on his hit list during the Presidential debates.

If you have a bargaining partner who is in fact achieving a goal - as collateral damage - that it might not otherwise be able to implement, you need to surface the hidden agenda. Remembering the importance of face-saving for a partner who may have backed himself into a corner, it's best to first raise the hidden agenda behind closed doors. Any negotiation in which all items to be traded are not on the table is a failed or sub-optimal bargaining session.

Face. We have a saying among my people that you can't save your face and your ass at the same time. Although there's real freedom on the other side of losing "face," few people are willing to go in that direction. It usually takes the total and complete collapse of your particular house of cards before you're ready to see the benefit of coming clean. That being the case, you've got to help your negotiation partner save face and you can't do that by airing a commercial comparing your opponent to a squalling baby during the national broadcast of a Sunday football game. 

Bad move, Dems.

How might the GOP save face while backing down from the brink of economic disaster? Give them victory. They won the sequestration round of the Obama vs. the House negotiation. Give it to them. They already have it. Don't praise them. Complain about their victory far more often than you're doing now. 

The far right Tea Party politicians are not worried about re-election but the Democrats potential Republican allies (the moderates) are terrified of losing their seats if they vote . . . well . . . moderately. Find a way to provide them with election protection. I believe this has been done several times before with the actual infusion of funds into certain politicians campaign coffers. It's also been done with political support from hidden stakeholders. The Chamber of Commerce, for instance, once a hidden stakeholder, has now come out in support of re-opening the government and authorizing a raise in the debt ceiling. Good for it. Wall Street too has been putting pressure on the right to avoid the danger a shut-down and a subsequent default would have on the world economy.

We're talking about interest-based, mutual benefit negotiation strategy and tactics here. It's not rocket science. What are your bargaining partners interests - what do they fear, value, prioritize, prefer, and, need. What do you have of high value to them (giving them a victory) and low cost to you (giving them a victory they already won).

Finally, there's "spin." That old Washington game we litigators and negotiators call "framing."

For god's sake, please stop calling the damn act Obama Care. Did the administration not see the Jimmy Kimmel episode where, when given a choice, random folks on Hollywood Blvd. said they liked the "Affordable Care Act" but despised "ObamaCare."

As Dick Draper recommends - if you don't like the conversation you're having, change it!

Finally, as the television ads being run on cable in Republican strongholds last week amply demonstrated (as if we didn't already know) the Tea Party's marching orders weren't to govern but to bring Obama down. Why not give them Obama's virtual head on a platter?

Count up everything the Obama administration lost due to GOP opposition since his '08 election. Treat it as news. Because visuals are so important, particularly to the chronically uninformed, actually put Obama's head on a platter and run his defeats over the image. Treat re-opening the government and raising the debt ceiling as magnanimous acts of the GOP in the face of the AntiChrist who would bring the country down to serve his own interests. Give them victory without compromising anything.

There are dozens of other ways to break impasse. But let me stress that prolonging a hurting stalemate is easy. You simply publicly demonize the "other guy" and dance the macarena over his grave. 


And put into practice those best negotiation strategies and tactics that I guarantee you every politician knows.

*W&C is one of the top law firms for women and has earned its designation as such.

Why Professional Men Make More Money Than Their Female Peers

I'm not going to say that the inexcusable delta between women professionals' compensation and that of their male peers is entirely women's responsibility, but here's what the Harvard Program on Negotiation suggests at least part of cause for that delta among physicians is.

In the context of negotiation, professors John Rizzo of Stony Brook University and Richard Zeckhauser of Harvard University asked a group of young physicians about their reference groups and salary aspirations.

Male physicians compared themselves to reference groups that earned higher salaries than the ones female physicians selected.

In addition, men’s salary reference points were more indicative than women’s of how much they earned later.

Finally, women tend to compare themselves to particular individuals whom they know, while men tend to assess themselves according to information about typical behavior.

Here's a simple solution to this problem. Research your market value in your specialty in your geographic area on payscale.com or glassdoor.com. If those resources aren't sufficient, pick up the telephone and make a few inquiries about compensation in your area.

Here's what I ask when I do this for clients.

Hi, I'm Vickie Pynchon. I'm a ___________ (attorney, author, consultant - whatever seems the best identity to get an answer to my question). I'm doing some market research on compensation for software designers/commercial litigators/OB-GYNs. Can you give me an idea of what people in that area with X years of experience are making/charging clients/etc.

Problem solved.

See how easy that was?

She Negotiates Makes Forbes Top 100 Career Websites for 2013

Here's what Forbes.com has to say about She Negotiates 

With a mission to transform lives, She Negotiates gives women the tools and support to take responsibility for closing their own personal income and leadership gaps. “We start with the pocketbook because economic power is political power. And without political power, we have no voice. No presence. No platform. No credibility,” the site says. What sets She Negotiates apart? They know the personal, cultural and political landscapes that impact one’s ability to ask for what they want and move forward. The site publishes blogs posts and book recommendations, and offers virtual training, video tutorials, as well as consulting services for a fee.

What To Do When They Ask You To Work Free | Step-by-Step Instructions

by Lisa Gates

If you are a consultant or solopreneur and you're offering a free consultation to give potential clients a slice, a sense of your value and skill, how is it going? Is it working? Or are you letting people pick your brain for free and off they go?

I think we all understand the motivation. You want to be of service, and to be known and valued so that people hire you.

But if we're truthful, the deeper motivation for giving our best stuff away is that we feel squeamish about asking for our value up front. Instead, we do the job before we get the job. Not good for wallets, reputations and credibility.

The solution?

Try a Strategy Session. Think about offering a 60- or 90-minute strategy session at a discounted rate. If your hourly rate is $200, you might offer a 90-minute session for the same rate.

What you can give freely is the 10 minutes it takes to get connected, find out what your potential client's challenge is, and give them the opportunity to hire you for one of your business services, or a strategy session.

If you aren't ready for that approach, here are a few ideas for making you free consultations more fruitful:

Ask diagnostic, open-ended questions:

Get inside your potential client's pain and frustration by asking questions that reveal the full range of their goals, challenges and needs.

Empathize and be authentic:

Tell people you understand their dilemma. Assure them that the territory they're in is familiar to you, and something you are well trained and experienced to solve.

Focus on the big deal benefits of solving those challenges:

People who want to land a job or get a raise or build a better website or write a better press release, are motivated by what they value most. Yes, they want to solve the issue at hand, but what's more important are the values they will honor by doing so - like freedom, security, joy, beauty, and possibility. So rather than focusing solely on the features or process of how you work, ask them questions that help them understand why they want what they want.

Share your strategy

Once you've built trust, you can then focus on the features or the process of how you work. Once your potential client is invested in the benefits of your solution, will they be more open to hearing how you work.

Give your potential clients some homework

This is where you give some of your best advice, and some direction for handling a particular piece of the work.


  • If you're a website designer, you might ask them to complete some branding questions.
  • If you're a productivity trainer, you might ask them to survey their employers about their email program issues.
  • If you're a divorce mediator, you might give them a few pointers for having a conversation with their partner about a sticky issue.
  • If you're a landscaper, you might ask them to take photos of gardens they love.


Ask for the business

Diagnostic questions are also helpful in closing. You might say, "I'd love to work with you. What's your timeline for getting this project handled?" Or, "When would you like to begin?" Or, "What else do you need to know to get started?"

Use NO as an opportunity for clarity

If your potential client is unsure and not ready to commit, ask more diagnostic questions, like:


  • What seems to be in the way of making a decision?
  • What do you need to know to be comfortable saying yes?
  • Who are the decision makers?
  • What have you budgeted for this?
  • Would a payment plan be helpful?

By the way, NO is also an opportunity to offer the Strategy Session as a way of dipping their toes in before committing to your program or service.


Lisa Gates + Victoria Pynchon
Negotiation Consulting, Training and Coaching

In-House Women Attorneys Make 40% Less In Bonus Pay | What To Do About It


The women in the ALM/Corporate Counsel survey who held the top positions in their law departments—chief legal officers and general counsel—reported an average total cash compensation of $575,200, while their male counterparts pocketed an average of $723,700. Female deputy chief legal officers surveyed brought home an average of $316,400 in total cash compensation, while men in the same positions made an average $386,700. Total cash compensation was calculated in the survey as a combination of salary reported as of March 1, 2013, and annual cash bonus for 2012.
Smaller bonuses for women accounted for a large part of the disparity between the numbers for top-level men and women corporate counsel. The survey indicated that GC and CLO women and their deputies made around 40 percent less in bonus payouts than men in the same roles.
Read more: http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202618551555&Survey_Finds_HighLevel_Women_InHouse_Lawyers_Paid_Less#ixzz2eS7Erhbk

What can I say that I haven't said before?

Negotiate your bonuses!

The women in the ALM/Corporate Counsel survey who held the top positions in their law departments—chief legal officers and general counsel—reported an average total cash compensation of $575,200, while their male counterparts pocketed an average of $723,700. Female deputy chief legal officers surveyed brought home an average of $316,400 in total cash compensation, while men in the same positions made an average $386,700. Total cash compensation was calculated in the survey as a combination of salary reported as of March 1, 2013, and annual cash bonus for 2012.

Smaller bonuses for women accounted for a large part of the disparity between the numbers for top-level men and women corporate counsel. The survey indicated that GC and CLO women and their deputies made around 40 percent less in bonus payouts than men in the same roles.

Read more here.

How Do You Close the 40% Bonus Gap? Here's How

First and foremost, understand that bonuses are negotiated. The Grindstone gave eight tips to help you negotiate your bonus some time ago and the advice is all the more important today. Career coach Rebecca Rapple advised women to remember that they are tough negotiators. "Realize," she said, 

that it is a negotiation! Many people (but especially women) accept their year end bonus, or lack thereof, as a fact, rather than a negotiation. Far too often we hear people saying “You should feel lucky to have a job” and other self-defeating phrases. While, in reality, companies are lucky to have you! And its important to ask – and negotiate – for the compensation you deserve.”

Read the entire Grindstone article and then start planning your "ask" for your year-end bonus. Use our free resources here.

The Smartest Negotiators in the Room Warn Us Not to Make the 5 Top Business Bargaining Boo Boos

In a special free report from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, the smartest negotiatiators in the room offer their advice on the five top bargaining errors. Below is an excerpt with a link to the free report. 

Viewing negotiations as win-lose

When negotiators come to the table assuming it's a win-lose negotiation, it is more likely to break down. Negotiators who are collaborative and willing to understand their counterpart's interests are more likely to negotiate mutually beneficial tradeoffs that result in more successful deals. Discover three proven strategies for finding value in the negotiation process.

Overvaluing your assets and your power

Business deals are built on relationships. When you're personally invested or believe you have more to gain, you can overvalue your assets and your power. Understanding the perspective and interests of your counterpart will enable agreements that benefit both parties and maintain strong business relationships. Learn how to prepare for a collaborative negotiation that avoids a power backlash and leads to success.

Overestimating the outcome and overcommitting to a deal

During the negotiation process, it's easy to lose sight of what you want out of the deal and ovecommit in order to make the deal happen. A keener understanding of what is valuable to the buyer and how committed your counterpart is to the deal will help you make better choices in the negotiation. Find out how to manage your bias and commitment to the deal before making an agreement.

Download PON'S free report - Business Negotiation Skills, 5 Common Business Negotiation Mistakes here.

Salary Advice Wrapped Up With a Bow

Raw Economic Power In One Corner and Justice In the Other.

When it comes to paying (or not paying) employees, the cri de coeur of American business is not yes, we can but because we can.

We don't provide our employees with health care insurance because we're not required to. We pay them minimum wage because we can.

We don't pay our interns because they've been convinced by career placement counselors, their parents and American business, that there are so many over-qualified people to perform the largely clerical tasks they're "hired" to do that they have to work for free.

See PayGenY for all the many reasons this is actually, legally and morally wrong. And it pains me deeply to say that friends of mine who could afford to pay new college grads at least minimum if not a living wage, ask them to work for free because they can.

What has happened to our moral compass?

What has happened to our understanding that the wheel of fortune will always turn and that when it turns down for those at the top, it's a feast for sharks unless the fallen has treated his partners and subordinates as valuable members of a team, without whom he could not accomplish the job he's doing, let alone make the money and accrete to himself the power he has taken for himself.

I have seen this in action too many times for it to be a one-off.

The first shall be last.

 It was ever and will ever be so.

The President of PETA, interviewed by Alec Baldwin in his must-hear podcast, Here's the Thing, noted that American business justifies animal cruelty so long as it can connect mistreatement to a penny or two increase in the price of its stock. The same is true for corporate human capital. The shock of the recession and its aftermath (socialize the loss and privatize the gain) has caused everyone from highly compensated senior equity partners to the last-hired guy in the mail room to react the way rats do when the man in the white lab coat throws the switch on the electrified grid beneath their feet. 

They either attack one another or go catatonic. 

Big Law in particular is treating its people very badly because it can. The people from HR, sometimes with security officers beside them, are walking up to legal secretaries with twenty-five to thirty years of experience and terminating them on the spot, hovering over them as they pack their things and walking them out the door.

I call this the new American perp walk.

If HR knew what it was doing, it would know this - people's claim-making inclinations are highly colored by the manner in which they are terminated. As Joan Didion so eloquently reminded us,

We tell ourselves stories in order to live. The princess is caged in the consulate. The man with the candy will lead the children into the sea. The naked woman on the ledge outside the window on the sixteenth floor is a victim of accidie, or the naked woman is an exhibitionist, and it would be 'interesting' to know which. We tell ourselves that it makes some difference whether the naked woman is about to commit a mortal sin or is about to register a political protest or is about to be, the Aristophanic view, snatched back to the human condition by the fireman in priest's clothing just visible in the window behind her, the one smiling at the telephoto lens. We look for the sermon in the suicide, for the social or moral lesson in the murder of five. We interpret what we see, select the most workable of the multiple choices. We live entirely... by the imposition of a narrative line upon disparate images, by the 'ideas' with which we have learned to freeze the shifting phantasmagoria — which is our actual experience.

If we terminate employees disrespectfully, subject them to humiliation and treat them unjustly, the story they will tell themselves about their recollected work experience will be one of disrespect, humiliation, and injustice. If we terminate them respectfully, with sufficient notice and with offers to help them make the transition, the story they will tell themselves about the past will reflect the present and claiming-activity will be reduced.

Continue Reading

Negotiation Law Blog Lives On and On and On at The Library Of Congress

The LOC describes this archive as a “selective collection of authoritative sites” associated with law schools, research institutes, think tanks, and other expertise-based organizations. “These blogs contain journal-style entries, articles and essays, discussions, and comments on emerging legal issues, national and international,” the LOC says.
Despite what the description says, several practitioner blogs, not affiliated with any school or organization, are included in the archive. Among them are Marc Mayerson’s now-defunct Insurance Scrawl, Howard Bashman’s How Appealing, Curacao lawyer Karel Frielink’s Karel’s Legal Blog, Victoria Pynchon’s Settle it Now Negotiation Blog, Scott Greenfield’s Simple Justice, Ken Lammer’s CrimLaw, Diane Levin’s Mediation Channel, and Jeff Beard’s LawTech Guru.
In a post this week at the Law Library of Congress blog In Custodia Legis, Matthew Braun, senior legal research specialist, provided further background on the archive. It was created, he says, “so that the legal events detailed and analyzed in the blogs of today can be studied for years to come.”

No matter the fact that the joy of blogging is in the . . . . blogging, it's gratifying to be recognized as having contributed something valuable to the expansion of the law into more collaborative practicies. That's why I'm thrilled to learn (h/t Don Philbin) that the Settle It Now Negotiation Law Blog has been archived in the Library of Congress.

As Robert Ambrogi writes today on his Law Sites Blog not yet archived by the LOC,

several practitioner blogs, not affiliated with any school or organization, are included in the archive. Among them are Marc Mayerson’s now-defunct Insurance Scrawl, Howard Bashman’s How Appealing, Curacao lawyer Karel Frielink’s Karel’s Legal Blog, Victoria Pynchon’s Settle it Now Negotiation Blog, Scott Greenfield’s Simple Justice, Ken Lammer’s CrimLaw, Diane Levin’s [sadly abandoned but fortunately archived] Mediation Channel, and Jeff Beard’s LawTech Guru.

In a post this week at the Law Library of Congress blog In Custodia Legis, Matthew Braun, senior legal research specialist, provided further background on the archive. It was created, he says, “so that the legal events detailed and analyzed in the blogs of today can be studied for years to come.”

"Studied for years to come."


The LOC describes the archived law blogs as a selective collection of authoritative sites associated with law schools, research institutes, think tanks, and other expertise-based organizations. 

Even sweeter but hilarious to anyone who survived "intro week" in law school. The dictate then was as follows: First you cite Harvard and Yale. Or as my Yalie husband would correct, Yale, then Harvard. After that, you took a trip through the legal Ivy League. Only if you were truly desperate did you cite, say, the Constitutional law professor at Chapman who is the only ultra-conservative voice against SCOTUS' recent Constitutiuonal stamp of approval on modernity (think Prop 8, DOMA).

I'll add links to all these other great legal blogs anon. In the meantime, click on Ambrogi's post for all the links. And thanks to my colleague, Don Philbin, for emailing me the link with a note of congratulations. His ADR Toolbox is must-read for all ADR practioners, most particularly those who appear before mediators and arbitrators. 

As Colin Powell said, the most important information to gather in international diplomatic negotiations is "the other guy's decision cycle." And Don is the smartest ADR practitioner in the room. Know his decision cycle and your facilitated negotiations will deliver more than you ever dreamed they could.

Negotiating The Cost of Maternity: Just the Facts

Facts without links taken from the American Way of Birth article in today's New York Times.

The Negotiation Doctors Are In At The Daily Muse

Starting this week with Questions to Ask Before Negotiating, the co-founders of She Negotiates Consulting and Training will be answering your negotiation questions (men's and women's) twice a month at The Daily Muse.

Our column, Ask the Negotiators, depends on you for its success.Research shows that negotiators learn best when working out their own bargaining challenges instead of attending classes where they're asked to negotiate hypotheticals whose facts are limited and often don't pertain to the negotiation environment in which men and women are required to have an often difficult conversation leading to agreement.

So please, send your toughest negotiation problems to us. We rarely achieve salary increases of less than 20% for our clients whether they're seeking a raise or making a lateral move. We've helped business people sell their small companies to larger ones, assisted others in having difficult conversations with their current employers as a last step before job hunting, and have helped organizations get their people working together as a team again.

There's no negotiation problem too tough for us and if we don't know the answer off the top of our heads, we do the research necessary or seek out the industry experts who can guide us - and you - in the right direction.

Here are my prior columns answering reader questions. Take a look at my co-founder Lisa Gates' profile here and decide who you'd like to ask or simply throw the question up for grabs by sending it to negotiation@thedailymuse.com. 

Ladies and gentlemen! Start your engines! Life is about to get easier and work far better and more remunerative.

We advise HR people as well so its not all employee related. We deal with companies, entrepreneurs, non-profits and individuals who are all seeking to get what they deserve - a happy, fair, productive and just workplace for everyone.

Power of Anger Ineffective against Powerful Negotiators


Researcher Gerben Van Kleef of the University of Amsterdam found that only low-power negotiators were strongly influenced by their opponent’s expressions of anger; they made larger concessions than when no anger was expressed. High-power negotiators barely seemed to notice the other side’s emotions; they identified their own true bargaining interests and offered only the concessions necessary to reach a good deal.
How can you gain this advantage?
Immediately before negotiating with someone you know to be emotional and demanding, reflect on a time you negotiated with a strong BATNA. Recall your sense of confidence and control. Generating psychological power can immunize you from your opponent’s angry tactics.


We're all somewhat afraid of conflict, at least those of us who are not sociopaths.

Men and women both want their days to pass without having accusations hurled at them, without hearing what a frenemy is saying behind their backs, and without stirring their colleagues or clients to anger.

Women, however, do tend to react to a negotiation challenge somewhat more fearful of an angry response than do men.

I've said before that men can claim to be unemotional only because they don't believe anger to be an emotion and I think there's more truth to that than humor. 

I had a client once who was negotiating her bargaining partners toward a million per year. That's what everyone in her niche was making. The men with whom she was negotiating gave her many reasons why she was an outlier and worth less than her peers (all of whom were men and most of whom were twenty years her senior). But it was she who they listened to at industry conferences. She was the expert. They'd just found a cozy retirement niche.  

Eventually, of course, her bargaining partners grew testy and finally one pitched all all-out temper tantrum worthy of a two-year old, telling her she'd never succeed, never reach the heights of the profession she'd already scaled. Told her she was fooling herself. Told her she didn't deserve it. Told her to get a grip on herself and remember who she was.

We responded with the best negotiation tactic for a bargaining partner who betrays us. We played "tit for tat," punishing the miscreant proportionally by simply going 36 hours without returning his phone call. When he finally did reach her, he apologized and, on top of that, increased his last offer without responding to a counter. In other words, he apologized by bargaining against himself, just about the only rule young attorneys are taught by their elders. Not to bargain against yourself.

So if you're worried that your negotiation partner is going to get angry at you, don't worry. Not only is "tit for tat" a powerful game changer, but recent research cited by the Harvard Program on Negotiation shows that only low-power negotiators [are] strongly influenced by their opponent’s expressions of anger.

Those negotiators who didn't trust their own power made larger concessions than when no anger was expressed. High power negotiators, however, barely seemed to notice the other side’s emotions; they identified their own true bargaining interests and offered only the concessions necessary to reach a good deal.

Here's the best news, anyone who wishes can gain the "high power" advantage. According to Harvard, our best strategy, particularly if we're anticipating an emotion response is to reflect on a time you negotiated with a strong [alternative to a negotiated resolution]. Recall your sense of confidence and control. Generating psychological power can immunize you from your opponent’s angry tactics.

Got that? Add a power pose (arms above your head, hands behind it, standing tall to trigger a flood of testosterone) and you'll be the leader of the pack.

Vroooom, vroooom, vrooooom.

Harvard's Top 5 Business Negotiation Mistakes

Business negotiation mistake #1:

Underestimating your own authority, ability and strengths.

Business negotiation mistake #2:

Assuming you know what the opposition wants.

Business negotiation mistake #3:

Overestimating your opponent’s knowledge of your weaknesses.

Business negotiation mistake #4:

Becoming intimidated by your opponent’s prestige, rank, title or educational accomplishments.

Business negotiation mistake #5:

Being overly influenced by traditions, precedents, statistics, forecasts, or cultural icons and taboos.

Ladies! Pay particular attention to numbers 4 and 5. In our consulting business, we find these two mistakes typical of our clients.

Click on the image for the free Harvard Program on Negotiation Report.

Yes You Can Be Liable For Negotiating in Bad Faith

I don't believe these arguments would fly in California, but in Delaware where so many corporations are born and with whose law so many contracting parties agree to comply, you can be liable for benefit of the bargain damages if you fail - in bad faith - to negotiate to conclusion agreements memorialized only by term sheets (which usually have too many holes to be enforceable).

Here's Morrison & Forester's case analysis with a link to its article on this important new case law.

A term sheet can play a useful role by allowing the parties to focus on key issues first, without getting bogged down in details. But what happens when a party agrees to a term sheet but insists on very different terms for the final contract?

The Delaware Supreme Court held in Siga Technologies, Inc. v. PharmAthene, Inc., No. 314, 2012, __A.3d__, 2013 WL 2303303 (Del. May 24, 2013), that a bad-faith failure to negotiate a final deal based on a term sheet may have harsh consequences. The breaching party may be liable for “benefit-of-the-bargain” damages reflecting the profits the counterparty would have received if the final contract had been signed and performed. While this ruling is based on Delaware law and the specific facts of that case, the message to negotiators is clear: Don’t agree to a term sheet unless it is explicitly non-binding or you are prepared to continue negotiations in good faith, consistent with the term sheet.

Continue reading here.

Here's DLA Piper's analysis.

Are You Negotiating From a Position of Weakness or From a Position of Power?

1. “Think powerful”
Job candidates are rarely in a position of power as interviewers decide the fate of their future career prospects. Yet, the winning strategy in these situations is thinking that one has power, in spite of the situation. As a candidate, how can you engineer a powerful mindset? Well, a simple trick is to remind yourself about a time you had power over a situation right before an interview, and invoke the precise feelings associated with that memory – feelings of confidence and competence, as well as decisiveness during decision making.
One of my recent research projects, Power gets the job: Priming power improves interview outcomes co-authored with Joris Lammers (University of Cologne), Derek D. Rucker (Northwestern University) and Adam Galinsky (Columbia University) tested just that idea: as part of a session of individual mock interviews, we assigned business school applicants to one of three conditions. In the first condition, applicants wrote a short essay about a time they had power just before entering an interview. In the second condition, applicants also wrote an essay, but this time about a time they lacked power. Finally, the last group did not write anything.
Then, we asked interviewers the likelihood that they would accept the candidate into a business school. When candidates went straight to the interview, interviewers accepted 47.1 percent of the candidates. However, the admission rate went up to 68 percent for those people in the group who wrote an essay about a time they had power, and fell to a low 26 percent for those who wrote an essay about a time they lacked power. Importantly, interviewers were unaware of the power manipulation we had given candidates. Thus, merely recalling an experience of high power increased candidates’ likelihood to be admitted by 81 percent compared to baseline and by 162 percent compared to those who recalled an experience of powerlessness.
Of course, there are other ways to engineer personal feelings of power. For instance, candidates can wear objects that make them feel powerful, such as a watch or a particular bag - anything that links you with feelings of power.
2. “Behave powerful”
Power is not only a mindset; it is also a behaviour. Small, almost unconscious moves signal power to an audience and can significantly change the outcome of an interview. In her recent TED talk, Amy Cuddy (Harvard University) provides an excellent summary of how non-verbal language can have a profound effect on how people are judged in contexts as varied as hiring or promotion interviews, a sales context or even a date. As such, physical poses such as wrapping legs, hunching or relying on one’s arms are many subtle signals of powerlessness that cast doubt on what candidates say, regardless of the content of the conversation.
The Virtuous Circle of Power
Interestingly, adopting “power poses” does not only affect how interviewers judge candidates, but also ironically reinforces candidates’ feelings of power. In recent research, Li Huang from INSEAD and colleagues had participants take powerful (for example, expansive postures) or powerless (constricted postures) poses and found the former behaved more powerfully than the latter, by taking action more often and thinking more abstractly, two well-known consequences of power. So, behaving in a powerful way is not only important for how interviewers perceive candidates, it is also a key driver of how candidates will behave!
Read more: http://forbesindia.com/article/insead/power-boosters-how-to-land-that-job-when-you-think-you-cant/35149/1#ixzz2VAQEbLlt

No matter where I go to teach negotiation strategies and tactics, people tell me they feel as if they're bargaining from a position of weakness. You'd think the lawyers at Intel, Qwest Communications, Warner Brothers and Sony Pictures Entertainment or the engineers and managers at Kraft Foods, all of whose people I've trained, would drape themselves in the power of their corporate brand.

Not so. More than 80% raise their hands when I ask them whether they're negotiating from a position of weakness.

That, I suppose, is because I haven't trained those companies' CEO's, GCs or Boards of Directors. But even then I'll bet I could flip a coin on their answer to the question. The Boards of Directors, after all, have to answer to shareholders and federal governmental agencies. CEOs must answer to their Boards and GCs to the CEO. Sometimes all of them feel intimidated by the lady in HR because Human Resources is the hot nuclear core of conflict in the organization.

What, then, can we do to increase others' perceptions that we have power, a perception that is more than half of our bargaining strength.

Over at Forbes today, we read about some powerful research done by several hot shot academics, including Adam Galinsky whose work I've featured at The Daily Muse and ForbesWoman.


Continue Reading

When 1 in 4 Women Ask for Raises 75% Get Them

A survey released today by Citi and LinkedIn in conjunction with Citi’s Connect Professional Women’s Network on LinkedIn finds that one of women’s biggest obstacles to career satisfaction may be themselves – only 1 in 4 professional women have asked for a raise in the past year, yet of those who asked, 75% received a salary increase.

On the heels of Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In, the survey also investigates whether women are really pulling back from leadership positions and if so, why? When asked if they could see themselves rising to a leadership position at their current employer, only 38% of women polled said yes, citing lack of opportunity, time and loyalty to their companies as the top three reasons why they’re not planning to advance.

For further insights on these and other statistics, watch Citi Talks Take Control of Your Career or click here for the full article with a cool chart.

To get that raise you deserve, just click here.You have nothing to lose and hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of your career to gain.

You Deserve A Raise - Let Us Help You Negotiate It

Corporate profits have been soaring for some time now. What/who is the engine of those profits?

You, the American worker, are!

That means you deserve a raise. Have you gotten one lately? Not according to most sources.

We routinely help women negotiate raises between 15 and 30%.

Our success reflects the undeniable fact that our clients deserve these raises but haven't been getting them. We're not rocket scientists but we do know how to assess and then help you negotiate your true market value.

If you don't believe you can negotiate a raise, here's what one of our clients had to say about our services following by what USA Today had to say about your entitlement to a raise now back at the beginning of the month.


I scored BIG when I hired Victoria Pynchon. She helped me successfully negotiate a job promotion, 40+% raise, and  new title -- all at my current employer. And this was during a recession! Vickie benchmarked salaries for me, realistically evaluated my options, helped me understand the motives and pressure of my employer, and advised me at every step of the way throughout the negotiations. And she guided me in developing a long-term strategic plan for my career.

USA Today:

Stock markets and corporate profits are breaking records. The economy suddenly looks brighter after the government's surprising report Friday that employers added 635,000 jobs the past three months.  

"Hourly wages ticked up 4 cents in April to an average $23.87, rising at about the same tepid 2% annual pace since the recovery began in mid-2009.

But taking inflation into account, they're virtually flat. Workers who rely on paychecks for their income have been running in place, financially speaking. Adjusting for inflation, an average worker who was paid $49,650 at the end of 2009 is making about $545 less now and that's before taxes and deductions.

According to this month's Harpers, "even among the well-educated, the fear of unemployment deters workers from demanding wage hikes, particularly when joblessness is pervasive."

Let's not let the spectre of unemployment, or permit the unsupported corporate excuse of "the recession" deter us from reaping some small portion of the benefit that has flowed to the top of the American economic ladder in the past few years.

As one of those mega-negotiation training firms that advertises in airplane magazines says, "you don't get what you deserve; you get what you negotiate."

Find us and call us at She Negotiates and let us help you negotiate what you deserve.

Despite our focus on closing the gender wage gap, we serve men as well as women because a rising tide raises all ships.

10 Reasons To Negotiate Instead Of Suing The Bastards

Now more than ever.

Mediation Awareness Week. See the televised event by clicking on the image and begin at the 57-minute mark.

Ten Reasons To Negotiate Resolution

1. The Los Angeles Superior Court has closed four court houses and dozens of court rooms. 

2. Time is literally money (see the time value of money).

3. The law (and your lawyer) only care about relevant facts - the most important part of your dispute may well not even be addressed, let alone resolved, by a jury verdict in your favor.

4. As your trial date nears, everyone - the judge, your lawyer, their lawyer, your spouse, your friends, and random acquaintances will urge you to negotiate a resolution with a neutral third party (a mediator).

5. Your attorney settles 90% of every case s/he litigates. S/he rarely goes to trial anymore. Ask her about the last verdict she won and then the one before that. If you have a skill (piano, golf, cooking a souffle) ask yourself how well you'd perform if you haven't used that skill recently or often.

6. Litigation is an extremely expensive board game, much of which is simply the cat and mouse exercise of discovery. Here's how it's played. I ask for documents. You object. I write you a letter demanding compliance. You write back refusing to comply and reminding me I have to "meet and confer" with you before we ask the discovery referee to intervene. We meet. We accomplish nothing. I make a motion (write a "brief") to compel you to turn over documents. You write an opposition. I write a reply. We pay the discovery referee to read our papers and listen to our oral argument. The discovery referee splits the baby in half or fourths or tenths. One of us asks the Judge not to sign off on the discovery referee's decision. More papers, more writing, more time, more of your money. The Judge, not a lion of courage, splits the baby again and refuses to award either party the costs of forcing compliance. Two months later (at least six have now elapsed) you get a stack of documents and a privilege log listing the documents that aren't being provided. I write you a letter demanding that you turn over documents on the privilege log. Rinse. Repeat.

7. As if the disrespect of the original dispute were not enough, I now get to sit you down in a conference room with a court reporter and spend a day or two asking you questions you don't want to answer. Often, the questions are asked in a disrespectful manner. When you complain to your attorney, he says "that's just the way the game is played." Focus on the word game. Are you having fun yet?

8. You get a bill for legal services rendered every month but you're no closer to resolution after receiving and paying 12 of these than you were on day one.

9. You're a business person. You negotiate business deals every day. Your lawyer does not.

10. You have given away any power you might once have possessed to resolve this dispute to a lawyer who does not understand your business, your life or the facts that drove you to seek legal advice in the first place.

Had enough? There are people out there - mediators - who are specially trained in helping you first communicate with your attorney and then helping you negotiate the resolution of your dispute with the "other side." Choose carefully. There are as many bad mediators there as there are litigators. My best advice? Negotiate the resolution of the dispute yourself even if it requires you to swallow your pride and to be the first one to say, "let's sit down and figure out how best to serve your interests and mine at the same time."


When Explanations Feel Like Excuses | Tsarnaev at The New York Times

As much as we'd like objectivity on the front page of our morning newspaper, all story telling, particularly narratives framed by headlines, direct our attention to some "facts" more than others.

The frame tends to suggest that the reader respond favorably or unfavorably to the subject of the tale. That's why framing and re-framing one's negotiation proposals are such critical bargaining skills. We want to pre-dispose our negotiation partner to favorably respond.

When a story appears to be misframed, particularly one that arouses strong feelings, people tend to feel betrayed by their news sources. That's what happened this morning with the New York Times article on Tamerland Tsarnaev's path from one of our most nakedly violent sports - boxing - to terror.

Before Bombs, a Battered American Dream, suggests a multitude of causal factors leading to an inexplicably heinous act of terrorism - planting and then triggering a pressure-cooker IED among the Boston Marathon spectators who had gathered at the finish line to celebrate human commitment, endurance, and tenacity.

Among those factors, the Times notes Tsarnaev's "embrace of Islam" which had grown "more intense" before the suspicious trip to Dagestan, a "religious identification [that] grew fiercer" as he "abandon[ed] his once avid pursuit of the American dream."

Family dysfunction also looms large in the Times narrative. Like many other mass murderers, Tsaranev's path to destruction was preceded by isolation and separation from his family. His mother returned to Russia in the face of felony shoplifting charges, following in her husband's footsteps. His beloved brother had left for college. These separations mimicked the more desparate ones in the family's history marked by war and hardship.

Continue Reading

Are Men Bad Negotiators?

We've been talking about women's negotiation deficits for so long that we've completely neglected the men. This post is an attempt to cure that omission. Listen guys! We care about you. And we'd like to help you with your negotiation problem. 

But let's start where we've been for the past ten years ever since Linda Babcock of the Heinz Negotiation Academy for Women published Women Don't Ask

In Speaking Out About Women And Power, U.C. Berkeley Psychology Professor Tania Lombrozo describes a study in which women experienced gender blow back when they voiced their opinions “too ardently.” The social scientists conducting that study asked a group of men and women to evaluate a hypothetical CEO who was described as offering opinions as much as possible or as withholding opinions.

Unsurprisingly, female CEOs who offered opinions frequently were judged less competent and less suited to leadership than their sister CEOs who withheld their opinions. Equally unsurprising was the way in which the study judged the men – as more competent and better suited to leadership if they spoke up often and less so if they didn’t.

Too many people have concluded from studies like these that women are stuck between a gender rock and leadership hard place but men are not.

As Lombrozo is quick to note, however, men faced a complementary danger: of being perceived as poor leaders if they didn’t voice their opinions. Members of both sexes were penalized for failing to conform to traditional gender stereotypes.

Listen. We are all judged according to the culture’s expectation for our behavior. Women are expected to be kind, patient, tolerant, loving, giving and self-effacing. Men are expected to be judgmental, tough, self-seeking and self-promoting. We all suffer social sanctions – from harsh judgments to electoral defeats – when we step outside of society’s expectations.

Those who would caution us to “act our role” or suffer the consequences, however, are missing the bigger picture, as are those who urge us to ape the style of the opposite gender. Let’s take negotiation as our example.

In a recent article at Huffington Post, Joan Williams writes that women don’t negotiate because they’re not idiots, citing yet another study confirming the imposition of social sanctions on women who negotiate outside their gender role. Sara Laschever, co-author, with Linda Babcock, of Women Don’t Ask and Ask for It, immediately dropped by to assert that Williams’ article mischaracterized Babcock’s findings, explaining that the "study used only used one negotiation script, in which both the male and female negotiators asked for higher pay in a fairly aggressive way.


Continue Reading

Negotiation As Improv From the Harvard Program on Negotiation


Discovering how to engage and persuade the other side is a process of trial, error, and adjustment. The following three rules from improv comedy can help negotiators connect more effectively with their counterparts.
1. “Say ‘yes, and...’ ”A cardinal rule of improv comedy is acceptance, which includes not negating what your counterpart says or does. If someone begins
a skit by shivering and saying, “Gosh, it’s cold up here at the North Pole,” it’s bad form to respond, “What are you talking about? We’re in the middle of the Sahara.” Improv comics accept each other’s “offers,” even if they’re unexpected or unwanted. Without the “yes, and...” norm, players would battle each other to define the scene and their relationship.
In negotiation, when the other side makes an unrealistic proposal, a firm “no” can be essential. But you’d often be wise to follow the “yes, and...” rule. Suppose a contractor interested in remodeling your office suite floats this proposal: 1) a floor plan that’s tricky to implement but perfectly suited to your team’s needs; 2) a price quote that’s slightly higher than you’d like; 3) completion in 10 months rather than your desired six-month time frame. If you’re not careful, you might immediately rattle off all the reasons why the third item is unworkable.
Before yielding to that negative impulse, consider where a “yes, and...” approach could take you. You might say, “I appreciate your willingness to accommodate our floor plan, which allows us to reciprocate on price. Now let’s figure out how to meet your need for extra time without causing us big headaches.” They may push back, but the “yes, and...” approach solidifies your progress and avoids painting your counterpart into a corner.
Saying “yes, and...” isn’t easy in negotiation. When you’re on the receiving
To subscribe to Negotiation, call +1 800-391-8629, write to negotiation@law.harvard.edu, or visit www.pon.harvard.edu. 5
end of an unworkable demand, you may feel your only choice is to cave in or fight back. If you’re quick on your feet, however, you may identify an alternative: accepting a glass that’s half full and then coaxing your counterpart to top it off.
2. “Don’t ask questions.” For improv performers, this second rule makes good sense. Imagine a show in which the comics can only ask questions:
Frick: “Aren’t you feeling well?”
Frack: “Why do you ask?”
Frick: “Do you think I’m being nosy?” Frack: “What gave you that idea?”
By this point, the audience would be stampeding for the exit. Nonstop questions stall scenes. Because questions rarely add new information, they don’t give the performers the material they need to build a story and their relationship.
Though a cardinal rule of improv comedy, “Don’t ask questions” might seem less applicable to negotiation. After all, without questions, how can you fathom the other side’s underlying interests and strike an agreement that pleases you both? Yet consider that even good questions can have costs. For one thing, they put the ball in the other party’s court. In improv, this is called “making the other guy do all the work.” When one comic says, “What are we doing here?” someone else has to invent the setting, roles, and action.
In negotiation, asking “What do you propose?” cedes control to the other party,
at least temporarily. That can be a disarming gesture if you’re confident that your counterpart will respond with a realistic offer that lays a foundation for collaborative problem solving. If he instead makes an aggressive proposal, you’ve let him anchor the process on his desired outcome and launched a game of haggling.
The wrong kind of questions can also backfire if the other side feels you’ve put him on the spot. “Is that really your bottom line?” is unlikely to get this desired response: “Well, not really. I just wanted to see if I could dupe you into settling cheap.”
When you do ask questions, keep them open-ended while offering a sense of direction. Better still, contribute to the conversation. Asking “What do we need to do to create more value?” can encourage fresh perspectives and ward off a knee-jerk no.
6 To subscribe to Negotiation, call +1 800-391-8629, write to negotiation@law.harvard.edu, or visit www.pon.harvard.edu.
Studies suggest that some negotiators seldom ask questions, though probably for the wrong reason—they fear that inquiries will signal poor preparation and oblige them to answer potentially awkward queries. Such negotiators are often so wrapped up in their own sales pitch that they don’t recognize that the other side probably has its own point of view.
The trick is finding the right balance between inquiry and advocacy. Questions can yield important information, but the act of questioning also creates an interpersonal dynamic that can be either positive or negative. Avoid the kind
of cross-examination that wins minor debating points at the cost of creating an adversarial relationship.
3. “Maintain eye contact.” Here’s another improv comedy rule that negotiators should observe in principle, if not literally. Eye contact is essential among performers, allowing them to send and receive physical cues that may be far more expressive than mere words. More fundamentally, it’s how they display deep engagement. If a comic lets his gaze wander over the audience, he’s playing to the audience, not his partner. Improv can succeed only if it’s done together.
Maintaining eye contact isn’t always possible or even advisable in negotiation. In certain cultures, looking a business associate straight in the eye is considered rude. Hierarchy also comes into play; those in high-power positions feel less need to engage subordinates by looking at them directly. And, of course, negotiations are increasingly conducted by telephone, fax, or e-mail—forums in which eye contact isn’t an option.
All the more reason for negotiators to find other ways to stay connected. Negotiators and improv performers alike must be accomplished listeners. This means more than spouting the tired scripts of active listening, such as “If I hear you correctly...” or “What I think you’re trying to say is...”. Deep listening isn’t just acting as if you’ve been paying attention; it is doing nothing but listening when your counterpart is speaking. That means resisting the impulse to formulate what you’ll say next while she’s still talking.
Improv comedians understand that the world is full of surprises—some pleasant, some not. Similarly, your negotiation counterparts may turn out to be more or less aggressive than you anticipated. Either way, be sure to respond to acceptable demands with “yes, and...”. Avoid acting like a prosecutor when
To subscribe to Negotiation, call +1 800-391-8629, write to negotiation@law.harvard.edu, or visit www.pon.harvard.edu. 7
you ask questions. Finally, successful improvisation requires listening with full attention.

My business partner, Lisa Gates, is an actor and improv artist as well as a negotiation consultant and adult learning specialist. It is she who taught me negotiation as improv.

The tips below are from the most recent white paper being circulated by the Harvard Program on Negotiation.

Lisa could give you all the improv rules but since Harvard wrote it down, I'm sharing its wisdom with you to start your business-engines working this weekend.

You can get the PON article from which this post was drawn along with several others here.

1. “Say ‘yes, and...’ ”A cardinal rule of improv comedy is acceptance, which includes not negating what your counterpart says or does.

If someone begins a skit by shivering and saying, “Gosh, it’s cold up here at the North Pole,” it’s bad form to respond, “What are you talking about? We’re in the middle of the Sahara.” Improv comics accept each other’s “offers,” even if they’re unexpected or unwanted. Without the “yes, and...” norm, players would battle each other to define the scene and their relationship.

In negotiation, when the other side makes an unrealistic proposal, a firm “no” can be essential. But you’d often be wise to follow the “yes, and...” rule. Suppose a contractor interested in remodeling your office suite floats this proposal: 1) a floor plan that’s tricky to implement but perfectly suited to your team’s needs; 2) a price quote that’s slightly higher than you’d like; 3) completion in 10 months rather than your desired six-month time frame. If you’re not careful, you might immediately rattle off all the reasons why the third item is unworkable.

Before yielding to that negative impulse, consider where a “yes, and...” approach could take you. You might say, “I appreciate your willingness to accommodate our floor plan, which allows us to reciprocate on price. Now let’s figure out how to meet your need for extra time without causing us big headaches.” They may push back, but the “yes, and...” approach solidifies your progress and avoids painting your counterpart into a corner.

Saying “yes, and...” isn’t easy in negotiation. When you’re on the receiving end of an unworkable demand, you may feel your only choice is to cave in or fight back. If you’re quick on your feet, however, you may identify an alternative: accepting a glass that’s half full and then coaxing your counterpart to top it off.

2. “Don’t ask questions.” For improv performers, this second rule makes good sense. Imagine a show in which the comics can only ask questions:

.In negotiation, asking “What do you propose?” cedes control to the other party, at least temporarily. That can be a disarming gesture if you’re confident that your counterpart will respond with a realistic offer that lays a foundation for collaborative problem solving. If he instead makes an aggressive proposal, you’ve let him anchor the process on his desired outcome and launched a game of haggling.

When you do ask questions, keep them open-ended while offering a sense of direction. Better still, contribute to the conversation. Asking “What do we need to do to create more value?” can encourage fresh perspectives and ward off a knee-jerk no.

The trick is finding the right balance between inquiry and advocacy. Questions can yield important information, but the act of questioning also creates an interpersonal dynamic that can be either positive or negative. Avoid the kind

There's more, but I'll let you wander on over to the PON site to get the rest of the goods.

If you'd like to see what a great negotiation teacher Lisa is, check out this video from Lynda.com.

Are the Republicans Negotiating Like Bolsheviks?

Some observers believe the GOP understands the potential catastrophic consequences of failing to raise debt ceiling, but simply does not care. Republicans, the thinking goes, are willing to “bet the company” on their wager that the promise of low taxes and severe cut-backs in public services will improve the economy or simply drive Barack Obama and more Democrats out of office, insuring a longer term victory for their party.

(for a different view, see The Method to Their Madness at the New York Times)

To assess the wisdom of a strategy to fail, I asked arbitrator and mediator Joshua Javits to weigh in on our series concerning the negotiated resolution of the current federal budget crisis.

In June, I appeared on Minnesota Public Radio with Javits to discuss options for breaking impasse in the Minnesota state legislature over similar budget issues. Javits, the former chairman of the National Mediation Board and current chair of the Grievance Committee of the International Monetary Fund agreed to share his experience and wisdom on the national budget crisis negotiations here with our readers today.

I asked Javits to first suggest an optimal negotiation strategy where one party – here, the GOP – is willing to risk catastrophe in the hope (or fervent belief) that the small government revolution they seek will be worth the short term damage to the economy if the debt ceiling is not raised.  Javits surprised me by mentioning the history of the rise of communism in Russia.

continue »


Professor Galinsky Analyzes the Federal Budget Impasse

As the federal budget deadline nears, I am seeking the advice and analysis of some of the country’s most prominent negotiation gurus to illuminate the motivations driving the on-again, off-again bargaining sessions between the Democrats and the GOP.

As Harvard professors Max Bazerman and Deepak Malhotra advise in their must-read Negotiation Genius, before concluding that our negotiation partners (or elected representatives) are crazy or evil, we should be asking ourselves whether they have unknown interests, are operating under hidden constraints, or are ignorant of facts of which we are aware.

These are the issues I’ve asked Adam Galinsky, Professor of Ethics and Decision in Management at the Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, to address.

What are the interests driving the federal budget negotiations?

Professor Galinsky: The parties’ interests exist at three levels: principle, prosperity, and politics.

Continue reading here.

Preparation for Negotiating Long Term Health Care

Fortune 50 CEOs, AmLaw 100 equity partners, Big Four consultants, teachers, professors, politicians, Presidents, secretaries, waitresses, your Starbucks barista, actors, bakers, engineers, designers, artists, mothers, daughters, sisters, children. We all have one thing in common – the end of life’s road.

The Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy Department Negotiation Preparation flow chart, suggests that negotiators

  • tailor the negotiation team to the situation
  • identify negotiation issues and objects
  • identify your bargaining partners’ history and probable approach
  • assess bargaining strengths and weaknesses
  • identify negotiation priorities and potential tradeoffs
  • determine an overall negotiation approach
  • prepare a negotiation plan
  • present the negotiation plan
  • preparare a negotiation agenda

This is as good a list of negotiation preparation steps as I have seen anywhere and it would be well to have it by your side whenever you negotiate anything more important than who should cook dinner and who puts out the garbage tonight.

Continue reading here

Negotiating with a Hospital for Transfer to Skilled Nursing

As you follow this series of negotiations with health care providers on behalf of a legally blind man with congestive heart failure, remember that more than sixty percent of us will spend some time in a nursing home if we’re lucky enough to reach sixty-five years of age. This is a portrait of life in the United States at rock bottom – no income, no savings, and no family other than an ex-wife to whom our patient was last married in 1989.

In case you do not personally know someone who is dependent upon Medicare and whose circumstances could be severely impacted by the current federal budget negotiations, now you do.

Is there any chance your story will end where Joel’s does? Do you believe you’ll be able to afford Blue Cross premiums forever? Or that Blue Cross, or another health insurance provider will pay for skilled nursing facilities as long as you need them?

If you are a woman nearing retirement, the possibility that you will age in comfort is far less likely than the chance you will live out your final years in poverty. Presently, the U.S. poverty rate for people 65 and over is 9.7 percent — that’s 3.5 million people who, if they are single, are living on less than $10,289 a year. Two-thirds of women over age 65 rely on Social Security as their primary source of income. Consequently, women are twice as likely as men to live out their golden years at or below poverty levels.

So, yes, this story is about negotiating with health care bureaucracies, but it is also about the way in which the richest country in the world treats the weakest members of the human family, family members who could well be us.

Continue reading here (which is also where all the links are)

Negotiating End of Life Care - Part I, Hospitals

Back from our fourth of July weekend, I leaned over to click the “play” button on our answering machine.

In Russian-accented English, the news everyone fears to hear rose from the machine. “My name is Oksana at Cedars-Sinai. I’m calling to talk about Joel. Please call me back.”

I’ve been here before and many of you have too. A loved one has been in an accident, is suddenly felled by a stroke or heart attack, or is in the final stages of a long decline. The last time the machinery of the American end-of-life bureaucracy ground into motion on my behalf was when my father began to die of Parkinson’s disease, a heart-breaking series of events I chronicled in “real time” here.

But no prior end-of-life experience prepares you for the next. Dad was in his 80s, remarried, living in a low-slung suburban Southern California ranch-style house attended by a 24-hour caregiver who had for years been his aid and companion. He had Blue Cross, retirement pay and a stream of income from rental property he’d amassed in the San Fernando Valley in the ’60s and ’70s.

Joel is my ex-husband. We were divorcing just as George H.W. Bush was beginning his Presidency in 1989. During those years, I met and married my new husband, changed jobs, pursued a new career, made new friends, and lived a busy privileged life.

Continue reading here.

Do You Have a Reason for that Number? Settling Lawsuits with Better Persuasion Skills

Explaining why our bargaining partners should do what we want them to do requires persuasion — a compelling account of our business requirements and capabilities — along with any other reasons we can gin up to prove that what we want is fair and reasonable.

As sociologist Charles Tilly explained in his book, Why? we fail to persuade when we’re talking past each other and we talk past each other when we’re using a type of reasoning different from that of our bargaining partner. I first heard of Tilly’s work from that great popularizer of social science research, Malcolm Gladwell (Here’s Why) after which I never argued my case or negotiated a deal in the same way again.

But First, Why Reason Giving is a Critical Negotiation Skill

In experiments on reason giving, researchers have found that we are far more likely to persuade people to accommodate us if we give them a reason to do so even if the reason makes no sense whatsoever. In one experiment, students were asked to cut in line at Kinkos. One group was instructed to give no reason. Another was told to give a good reason (I’m late for class). The last was directed to give an irrational reason (because I want to).

Continue reading here.


Do You REALLY Want Me to Be Evaluative?

michaelCarbone.jpgThis just in from one of my colleagues at ADR Services, Inc., Michael P. Carbone. Good stuff and an excellent mediator for commercial real estate and construction dispute litigation.

A mistake that lawyers sometimes make is failing to ask for what they want.  If they do want an evaluation they can ask for it when they hire the neutral. There are processes variously known as neutral evaluation, non-binding arbitration, or early case assessment which are designed specifically for this purpose.  They can be used independently or they can be combined with mediation.
I was once hired to give a neutral evaluation in a commercial real estate case.  The parties told me at the outset that while they were interested in exploring settlement they were really interested in my opinion on the merits.  So we conducted a mediation that included a neutral evaluation.  Not only did this meet their needs, the evaluation was given in a confidential setting and could not be used as evidence if they did not settle.
The point is that both parties wanted the process to be evaluative.  It was not a situation where one party was expecting the mediator to be evaluative and the other party wanted the mediator to refrain from doing so.
When parties hire a mediator, they need to be of the same mind about the process. Otherwise the result will be like splitting a steak with your partner when one of you likes it rare and the other likes it well done. Somebody is going to get indigestion!

Must Read for All Negotiators, Particularly Litigators

Naivete and Cynicism in Negotiations and Other Competitive Contexts by Chia-Jung TsayLisa L. Shu and the great Max H. Bazerman. Executive Summary from Harvard Working Knowledge below:

In business and in life, it's important to strike a smart balance between naïveté and cynicism. Act too naïvely, and someone is bound to take advantage of you. Skew cynical, and you may miss out on new opportunities with good people. This paper discusses the decision errors inherent in leaning too far in either direction. Research was conducted by Chia-Jung Tsay, Lisa. L. Shu, and Max H. Bazerman of Harvard Business School. Key concepts include:

Naïveté is more than a glut of trust. More broadly, naïve behavior refers to a failure to make the best decision, due to a lack of consideration of other people's strategic and behavioral perspectives. We are likely to make naïve decisions when we don't think through the likely future decisions of other parties. A cynic, on the other hand, may avoid a business transaction due to an assumption that the seller's self-interested motives will be harmful to him or her-even if logic shows that the deal would likely benefit both parties. When people withhold from trusting others, they usually lack opportunities to learn whether their trust would have reaped rewards. But when they offer their trust and are subsequently burned, they learn hard lessons about trust. This unbalanced feedback breeds cynicism.

In laboratory studies, the best negotiators were those who had a tendency to think about the perspectives of others. However, most people lack sufficient perspective-taking ability. The researchers suggest that training mechanisms should be developed to increase that ability.

Full working paper available for download at the link above.

The Week at ForbesWoman

We've had a busy week over at ForbesWoman in articles and blog posts covering:

The Davos World Economic Forum

The paucity of women at the Davos Economic Forum despite how rich the ones who attended are as described in this post by Forbes staff writer Louisa Kroll, The Richest Women at Davos.

Women's Davos Wardrobe Dilemmas covered by Moira Forbes as an unfortunate but still critical factor for the display of power necessary to be a player at the World Economic Forum.

A photo gallery of the executive conferences women CEOs love best.

The Continued Assault on the Glass Ceiling

Aman Singh's post on Why So Many Top Women Don't Make it to Executive Leadership.

Jenna Goudreau's Jobs Outlook:Careers Headed for the Trash Pile

Continue Reading

Bad at Science, Math? Success More Tied to Social Skills

Take a look at David Brook's article today on elite boot camp parenting. I wish I'd said what he says best about the importance of social skills and emotional intelligence to success (not to mention happiness). Naturally, these are the skills one needs to negotiate effectively as well.

Excerpt below - thanks to Stephanie West Allen for the link:

Practicing a piece of music for four hours requires focused attention, but it is nowhere near as cognitively demanding as a sleepover with 14-year-old girls. Managing status rivalries, negotiating group dynamics, understanding social norms, navigating the distinction between self and group — these and other social tests impose cognitive demands that blow away any intense tutoring session or a class at Yale.

Yet mastering these arduous skills is at the very essence of achievement. Most people work in groups. We do this because groups are much more efficient at solving problems than individuals (swimmers are often motivated to have their best times as part of relay teams, not in individual events). Moreover, the performance of a group does not correlate well with the average I.Q. of the group or even with the I.Q.’s of the smartest members.

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Carnegie Mellon have found that groups have a high collective intelligence when members of a group are good at reading each others’ emotions — when they take turns speaking, when the inputs from each member are managed fluidly, when they detect each others’ inclinations and strengths.

Participating in a well-functioning group is really hard. It requires the ability to trust people outside your kinship circle, read intonations and moods, understand how the psychological pieces each person brings to the room can and cannot fit together.

10,000 Boomers a Day Do Not Go Gently into Retirement

Even before the recession I was asking anyone within shouting distance just exactly what the country was going to do when the largely bankrupt baby boom became the largest impoverished retired class the country has ever known.  

Post-recession, we're even deeper in debt and searching for last minute solutions.

One thing's for sure. Most of us will not be retiring at 65 - the age 10,000 boomers a day will benchmark in 2011.

For those of our age-mates who are unemployed, I penned a New Year's post over at ForbesWoman entitled 10,000 Boomers a Day . . . Getting Back to Where We Once Belonged containing some much needed advice on negotiating your way back into the workforce.

Below an excerpt.  Further advice at the link.

Brentwood Executive Search strategist  Marcia Basichis suggests that job hunters do what any good negotiator would – learn your potential employers’ interests and tailor your resume to match them. “All job candidates,” says Basichis “should  research companies they would like to work for, thoroughly going over their websites to understand the business.”

Instead of focusing on the past – the  dead-weight contained in most resumes -Basichis recommends looking to the future by writing potential employers letters explaining  how your existing skills, education and experience can benefit the company you wish to join.

Dont overstate,” says Basichis, “but craft your resume in a manner that makes your experience most closely match the specific job you seek.”

Canadian attorney Michael Webster adds to my post on interest-based negotiation, there are only two questions you need to ask yourself to radically increase your chances of winning the coveted job you seek. First, ask what you would do if you and your potential employer were one person instead of two. Second, ask how you might credibly signal what both parties would need to do to achieve that goal.

Check out these related articles as well:

Bad News for Gen-Y:  Older Workers Clinging to Jobs

Five Ways for Older Workers to Cope with Job Hunting

Great Job Sites for Older Workers

5 Strategies for 55+ Job Hunters

79 Million Boomers Begin Retiring Now

Starting Over at 55

Retire? Forget About It!

Readers!  Please add your resources for unemployed boomers as your first act of random kindness for 2011.


Valuing Commercial Enterprises in Business Litigation

Much of the complex commercial litigation that I mediate requires that businesses be valued.  Although we litigators tend to hire experts to do the dirty work we went to law school to avoid (math!!) we do need to understand our own consultants' valuations as well as those of our adversaries in order to perfect our strategy and prevail at trial.

Over at Harvard Business School's Working Knowledge site there's an excellent article entitled Valuation When Cash Flow Forecasts are Biased.  Executive Summary below.

The valuation of forecasted cash flows can be an inaccurate process, especially when the forecasts are created by optimists who neglect to consider worst-case scenarios. In this paper, Harvard Business School professor Richard S. Ruback has developed methods of valuating forecasted cash flow when the predictions are biased upward. Key concepts include:

  • Managers often recognize that their cash flow forecasts are too optimistic and boost their discount rates to account for that bias. But that only works if the optimism masks a potential permanent downside.
  • The common practice of increasing the discount rate to account for optimistic cash flow forecasts can lead to significant valuation errors that increase with the length of the project, the cost of the capital, and the chance of a downside.
  • When the optimistic cash flow forecasts omit a temporary downside, valuators should adjust the forecast by deflating it and then setting the discount rate equal to the cost of the capital. In other words, the common heuristic of boosting the discount rate to account for optimistic cash flow can lead to a substantial valuation error when the omitted downside isn't permanent.
  • When the optimistic cash flow forecasts omit a potential permanent downside so that, if it occurs, there is no chance of recovery, valuators should deflate the cash flow forecast and increase the discount rate so that it includes the cost of capital as well as the probability of a downside.
  • Negotiating a New Economic Paradigm

    "You Park Like an Asshole" ~ How Not to Commence Negotiations

    book.jpgPriming Legal Negotiations is the winner of this week's Golden Asshole Award. /*  An autographed copy of A is for Asshole, the Grownups' ABCs of Conflict Resolution will be winging its way to author Carrie Sperling, Executive Director of the Arizona Justice Project today!  Excerpt below.  Full article at the link.  

    Thanks to the Legal Writing Prof Blog for the head's up.

    As I left for work one crisp, sunny April morning, I spotted a five-by-seven printed form on my car’s front windshield. The form’s message proclaimed, in large, bold letters, “youparklikeanasshole.” The form had a checklist of infractions like “two spots, one car,” “that’s a compact?” and “over the painted lines.”The bottom of the printed form said,

    Parking is far too limited in our overcrowded streets and parking lots, and you happened to park like an asshole. Go to the above web site to see why someone else thought you parked like an asshole. Don’t be too offended, we all do it one time or another—it just so happens you got caught.

    My next-door neighbor, who evidently put the note on my car, listed my infraction as “other” with a follow-up explanation written by hand: “You are parking too close to my garage. It’s hard for me to pull my truck in.” I studied the note for a few moments. I felt my heart start to pound and my whole body became uncomfortably warm. I wadded the note and tossed it. I was angry. When I arrived at work twenty minutes later, I was still angry. I told my co-workers about the note.

    They all agreed with me; it was rude and inappropriate.

    When I returned home that evening, I visited with neighbors who were not complaining about my parking. I showed them the note, now crumpled and dirty. They, too, became angry. One neighbor suggested exacting revenge on the note’s author by letting the air out of his tires. Another neighbor excitedly suggested something involving Crisco. Although I am a trained mediator, I became giddy about the prospect of getting even.

    Perhaps it was a moment of self reflection that led me to question why I was even thinking of revenge. But that written demand evoked intense emotions in me and in my neighbors. We did not care about investigating appropriate responses or attempting to resolve the problem; we wanted to make my neighbor pay for his rude behavior. Instead of encouraging me to change my behavior in the way my neighbor requested, the note had an entirely different effect. The written demand prompted me to make my neighbor regret placing that note on my windshield.

    This incident led me to question the legal demand letters lawyers write. I wondered if demand letters often evoke similar negative emotional reactions in their recipients. And, if so, do those emotions influence the recipients’ behaviors in ways that hinder settlement?

    I'll be providing a template for a negotiation request letter later today.

    And all kidding aside, this article should be required reading for every legal writing class in every law school in the country!

    Cross-posted at The ABCs of Conflict Resolution Blog.


    */  The Golden Asshole Award is given once a month to the individual making the greatest contribution to reducing assholishness in the profession.

    Extreme Negotiations at HBR

    Check out Extreme Negotiations at Harvard Business Review this month (kicker:  What U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan have learned about the art of managing high-risk, high-stakes situations).

    I have to tell you that I believe every one of our She Negotiates graduates understands and knows how to use the bullet point takeaways from Extreme Negotiations below.  Let me also say it's not enough to read about these techniques ~ you must practice practice practice practice.

    Get the Big Picture

    • avoid assuming you have all the facts
    • avoid assuming the other side is biased but you're not
    • avoid assuming the other side's motivations and intentions are obvious and nefarious
    • instead, be curious ("help me understand"); humble ("what do I do wrong?") and open-minded ("is there another way to explain this?")

    Uncover and Collaborate

    • avoid making open-ended offers ("what do you want")
    • avoid making unilateral offers ("I'd be willing to . . . "
    • avoid simply agreeing to or refusing the other side's demands
    • instead ask "why is that important to you?"
    • proposed solutions for critique ("here's a possibility - what might be wrong with it?")

    Elicit Genuine Buy-in

    • avoid threats ("you'd better agree, or else . . . "
    • avoid arbitrariness ("I want it because I want it."
    • avoid close-mindedness ("under no circumstances will I agree to - or even consider - that proposal"
    • instead appeal to fairness ("what should we do?")
    • appeal to logic and legitimacy ("I think this makes sense because . . . ")
    • consider constituent perspectives ("how can each of us explain this agreement to colleagues?"

    Build Trust

    • avoid trying to "buy" a good relationship
    • avoid offering concessions to repair actual or perceived breaches of trust
    • instead explore how a breakdown in trust may have occurred and how to remedy it
    • make concessions only if they are a legitimate way to compensate for losses owing to your nonperformance or broken commitments
    • treat counterparts with respect, and act in ways that will command theirs.

    Focus on process

    • avoid acting without gauging how your actions will be perceived and what the response will be
    • ignoring the consequences of a given action for future as well as current negotiations
    • instead talk about the process ("we seem to be at an impasse; perhaps we should send some more time exploring our respective objectives and constraints."_
    • slow down the pace:  ("I'm not ready to agree, but I'd prefer not to walk away either.  I think this warrants further exploration.")
    • issue warnings without making threats:  ("unless you're willing to work with me toward a mutually acceptable outcome, I can't afford to spend more time negotiating")

    I'll be blogging on each one of these steps in the negotiation process for the next two weeks so stay tuned.

    Cross posted at She Negotiates and the ABCs of Conflict Resolution.




    How to get a raise in 2011 (the bullet point outline with a special note for women)

      • your present compensation serves as a powerful anchor of your value to your employer's advantage
      • the following suggestions are a way of re-anchoring that value so that your starting point is greater than what you made this year
      •  recalibrate your value according to what you are worth in your employer's hands, i.e., what does your employer save or make based upon the work you do (this may require research on your part)
      • use that value in setting your desired compensation (also include the cost to your employer of replacing irreplaceable you)
      • begin asking your employer and superiors diagnostic questions (questions designed to learn what your employer needs, desires and prefers and what your employer is most concerned about in regard to the continued profitability of his/her business)
        • "how's business" is a great open ended diagnostic question that does not assume the answer
        • more specific questions include "what does the company need to accomplish in the first quarter of 2011 to meet its financial goals?"; "what are the company's first quarter financial goals?" "what do you see as the primary obstacles to achieving those goals?" "what do you see as the primary drivers of success in reaching those goals" etc. etc.
        • don't ask these questions impromptu; write them down as a way of brainstorming the most powerful questions and those that would be easiest to ask

    Continue Reading

    Speaking as Negotiation

    I believe my first public speaking engagement was in the elementary school auditorium in December of1962, narrating the school Christmas pageant. When I spoke in public as a child (and later acted in La Mesa's "Little Theater" ~ a pre-teen farce called "Mudpack Madness") I did so with unmixed motives. I wasn't proving myself or selling patent medicine. My childhood public performances were not part of a "branding" effort or marketing campaign. I wrote and spoke and acted from the purest of motives. I was in love with the English language and with the printed and spoken word. I believed in my voice without question then. I was the obvious choice. I could deliver the message more powerfully and authentically than anyone else.

    The next time I looked up, I was standing in the wings of the High School production ofMy Fair Lady ("Mrs. Higgins" thank you very much).  An odd feeling overtook me.  I looked down at my hands and they were damp and trembling. Everyone and everything, sets, student actors, the high school orchestra and the audience of wowed parents, looked brighter and more vivid than they ever had before.  Simultaneously dazzling but oddly blurry.

    And so I entered adolescence with what would one day be described as a "panic disorder."  I mustered on through speech team (dramatic and humorous interp and oratorical analysis); took one drama class in college and gave up.

    When I made my first court appearance fifteen years later, I recalled My Fair Lady as my vision narrowed just before I stopped myself from passing out.



    Continue Reading

    Closing the Wage Gap by Negotiating for Ourselves

    Gen Y Learns to Negotiate on the Streets of Naples


    Click on the ForbesWoman link for the newest "She Negotiates" columnist, Roxana Popescu who here not only learns the lessons of street haggling, but who "outs" herself as the Daily Asker!

    Nothing, and I mean nothing makes me happier than watching this new generation of women grow. Please drop by the Daily Asker and ForbesWoman to meet the brilliant and inspirational Roxana!

    The Cognitive Biases that Create Impasse

    Who's Too Big to Fail? We Are!

    Cross-posted at She Negotiates

    What does this man have that you don't?

    A year-end 2009 salary of $21,340,547 during one of the worst year's in the history of his industry ~ banking.

    Listen!  The recession is just another excuse for not paying you what you're worth.

    How do we know?

    Because the most effective negotiators on the planet ~ corporate CEO's ~ are finding the downturn to be the best time to squeeze every last living dollar out of their employers.

    If they can do it, so can you!

     Here's the evidence:

    Bank of America Corp.
    Thomas Montag
    2009 Total Compensation: $29,930,431
    JPMorgan Chase & Co.
    James Dimon
    2009 Total Compensation:
    Citigroup Inc.
    John Havens
    2009 Total Compensation: $11,276,454
    Morgan Stanley
    Walid Chammah
    2009 Total Compensation: $10,021,969
    The Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
    Lloyd Blankfein
    2009 Total Compensation: $9,862,657
    Wells Fargo
    John Stumpf
    2009 Total Compensation: $21,340,547

     Whhaaaaaatttttt? do these men have that you don't have?

    • Social networks with rich and powerful people who sit on their Boards of Directors and influence policy makers and Wall Street power brokers
    • The self-created illusion that they are "too big to fail" /1
    • The persuasive argument that only they, with their unique combination of experience, education, knowledge, savvy, can-do-spirit, and leadership qualities can pull these banks out of the sinkhole of the recession.
    • Friends in very high places.
    • Chutzpah and shamelessness (not that we'd want to encourage this second character flaw in our readers).
    • Self-satisfaction.
    • Entitlement.
    • An employment history of asking for and receiving increasing levels of compensation based upon their salary negotiations at every career point possible (and every career point impossible)
    • the demonstrated ability to produce results (our readers do possess this strength but haven't used it to their greatest advantage yet)
    • the tendency to measure their market value by their value in the hands of their employer, not by what they "need" or what they are "worth" according to some internal metric that depends upon how they feel about thier accomplishments.


    1/  This is where collective action comes in.  When we aggregate together America's employees, small business owners and homeowners, we get a non-corporate "entity" that is waaaayyyyyy bigger than some little piss-ant bank and it is we who are too big to fail.

    It's the Rapport, Dummy!

    Thanks to Weise Law Studio (studio? interesting) for the following from the Harvard Program on Negotiation.

    How is it that mediators—who themselves lack any power to impose a solution—nevertheless often lead bitter disputants to agreement? Substantive expertise helps, as does keen analytic skill. But according to a survey by Northwestern University law professor Stephen Goldberg, veteran mediators believe that establishing rapport is more important than employing specific techniques and tactics.

    To gain parties’ trust and confidence, rapport must be genuine: “You can’t fake it,” one respondent said. Before people are willing to settle, they must feel that their interests are truly understood. Only then can a mediator reframe problems and float creative solutions.

    prisons of peace

    Can we afford not to learn and teach these skills?  Cross-posted at She Negotiates.

    three is the magic number . . .

    . . . and the Supreme Court has it.  Check out The Female Factor over at Slate (excerpt below):

    Social scientists contend that the difference is more than just cosmetic. They cite a 2006 study by the Wellesley Centers for Women that found three to be the magic number when it came to the impact of having women on corporate boards: After the third woman is seated, boards reach a tipping point at which the group as a whole begins to function differently. According to Sumru Erkut, one of the authors of that study, the small group as a whole becomes more collaborative and more open to different perspectives. In no small part, she writes, that's because once a critical mass of three women is achieved on a board, it's more likely that all of the women will be heard. In other words, it's not that females bring any kind of unitary women's perspective to the board—there's precious little evidence that women think fundamentally differently from men about business or law—but that if you seat enough women, the question of whether women deserve the seat finally goes away. And women claim they are finally able to speak openly when they don't feel their own voice is meant to be the voice of all women.

    Over at She Negotiates, we use the power of women to support, encourage, cheer and brainstorm in every class we offer, with the greatest power coming to and from our post-graduate Negotiation Master Classes which are limited to only four women.  For additional information about how you can use woman-power to improve your bottom line, contact either Lisa or Vickie using our contact form or catch either one of us at our direct numbers.

    This isn't about gender-war, this is about human peace and prosperity!

    Thanks to Bruce Moyer, the Federal Bar Association's Government Relations Counsel for the head's up on this one.

    Capuchin Monkeys, Irrational Choices, and Hope for the Future

    Virtual Property, Virtual Litigation and Real Resolution

    I continue to bark at the moon.

    Here's a piece I missed in April on real litigation filed over virtual property in Second Life.

    Architect David Denton spends much of his time on a lush tropical island, where he experiments with cutting-edge building designs and creates spaces for artists to showcase their work.

    Never mind that the island only exists in the virtual-reality world of Second Life, a popular online venue where people interact via digital avatars. Denton, 62, said he purchased the island for about $700 — real money, not virtual cash — from its former owner, and considers it his property.

    Here's the thought this article triggers.  If 90% of all litigation involving people (I'll skip corporate litigation and litigation brought to vindicate rights such as that declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional) will end with a retired Judge telling the people that litigation is too expensive and a jury trial too uncertain for them to bear, why don't we just litigate virtually (with Linden dollars!) giving the parties the experience of litigation that will eventually drive them to settlement?

    I'm sure some smart programmer can come up with an algorithm for most personal disputes, including both factual templates and the application of simple legal principles.  A "ticker" could keep track of the dollars your virtual attorney is billing on your law suit's screen everyday.  Continuances, discovery motions, pre-trial proceedings and depositions could all be simulated.

    Then the parties return from the virtual life of Second Life Litigation and sit down in the old fashioned way to negotiate a resolution to their dispute or, if necessary, hire a village elder trained in conflict resolution, sometimes called a mediator, to help them do so.

    Negotiation is a Conversation Leading to Agreement

    From today's "She Negotiates" lesson.

    If negotiation is a conversation with agreement as its goal, we should not be wasting our time arguing with one another about whose point of view is the best. We should be talking to one another about how we can both achieve as many of the goals we both want to achieve as a result of our conversation.

    You do not have to change anyone's mind to give them what they want to get. And you don't have to grudgingly accept half a loaf (a portion of the pie) if, unbeknownst to one another, you possess five items of value your bargaining partner wants or needs, and your bargaining partner possesses a dozen items of value you want or need. In a really effective negotiation, you may find that together you and your bargaining partner can whip up a dozen pies and end up with more than either of you had imagined.

    Wouldn't you like to be learning how to do this instead of working on that sanctions motion for your adversary's bad faith refusal to answer interrogatories?

    The next game-changing She Negotiates month-long coached course begins on September 16.  Stop trying to change people's minds and start changing the world!

    And gentlemen, tell your women friends.  Husbands and significant others benefit from this course as well!  My own happily came back from the gym the other day saying "I did what you taught me; I got two extra months of gym membership free."

    yes we can! negotiate our jobs back! at ForbesWoman

    negotiation - it takes courage

    (cross posted at She Negotiates)

    I asked one of my consulting clients for a testimonial yesterday.

    "Anything," she said, "it's genuinely changed the way I do everything.  It's not just the shift in my business relationship with [BigBiz, Inc.].  I dumped a boyfriend last week because of our conversations!  So, seriously, what would you like me to say?"

    My client and I, like the few women commercial litigation clients I had during my twenty-five years as a lawyer (2%?) were quickly becoming friends.  And I was proud of her.  Truly proud.  Like a parent would be.

    "I'm proud of you," I finally said, even though I'd been thinking it for weeks.  "You've shifted the power in your working relationship and that was difficult to do.  You were persistent.  You're a first class learner.  And you've been brave."

    She laughed, the way we women do when we're praised, wanting the moment to pass instead of savoring it a little, particularly when we know deep down we've genuinely achieved something important in our own lives and careers but don't want to appear self-satisfied.

    So I said it again.  "I'm really proud of you.  You've done great work and you never gave up.  You didn't fold to the power of BigBiz, Inc.  You stood up for yourself."

    Continue Reading

    Negotiating War: a "False and Sloppy Consensus"

    Let's take a workplace teaching moment from the Obama-McCrystal dust-up as provided to us by the New Yorker in this week's Talk of the Town piece, Team Effort.  In reporting the dysfunction on Team Afghanistan (McChrystal vs. American Ambassador Karl Eikenberry with President Karzai as a manipulative by-stander) the NY'ers George Packer recalls a description of governmental decision-making provided by Obama's special representative for the region, Richard Holbrooke, last year:

    People sit in a room, they don't air their real differences, a false and sloppy consensus papers over those underlying differences, and they go back to their offices and continue to work at cross-purposes, even actively undermining each other.

    If that defines your workplace, it's time to have some difficult conversations in which a genuine consensus is negotiated among those in power, all the while remembering that everyone is afraid of the scary HR lady down the hallway.  As the recession appears to deepen and run American business off the rails, its time we get real, get smart, get efficient and get right with one another.  If not, next thing you know, you'll be learning to spell Q-U-A-G-M-I-R-E yourself, wondering how the heck such a profitable enterprise could meet such a messy and costly end.

    Here are some resources:

    Difficult Workplace Conversations by Conflict Zen blogger Tammy Lenski - an old post but a timeless one.

    Bursting the Bubble, Cultivating Dissent in the Workplace by mediator and negotiation trainer and consultant Diane Levin of The Mediation Channel.

    Resolving Conflicts at Work by Ken Cloke and Joan Goldsmith.

    The Martial Art of Difficult Conversations by Peter (why I returned my iPad) Bregman at the Harvard Business Review

    Toward a Theory of Managing Organizational Conflict by M Afzalur Rahim (for the academically-minded)

    And, last but not least, the google book site for the Art of War

    And remember . . . . never ever ever get comfortable with a reporter around.

    Notes on Breaking Impasse: Build a Golden Bridge

    Build a Golden Bridge (from Getting Past No by William Ury)

    first the problem

    • other side is stalling/resisting
      • lacks interest in your proposals
      • makes vague statements
      • delays
      • renegs on agreements
      • responds with a flat "no"

    now the likely explanation for the problem

    • four most common reasons for impasse of this type:
      • it's not their idea
      • you're overlooking at least one of your counterpart's basic interests
      • your partner fears losing face
      • the decision seems too overwhelming; is too big and the time is too short, making it easier simply to say "no"

    "Your challenge is to persuade the other side to cross the chasm that lies between their position and the agreement you want.  That chasm is filled with dissatisfaction, uncertainty and fear."

    SOUND FAMILIAR????????

    Continue Reading

    Kagan: the Business Angle

    Let the Kagan Games Begin: Whitepapers from SCOTUS Blog

    (pictured:  the bread and circuses part)

    Thanks to the SCOTUS Blog for the following resources on the upcoming Kagan hearings.  Follow SCOTUS Blog all week for commentary. 

    Why should negotiators be interested in the composition of the Supreme Court?  Because the freedom to negotiate requires a strong rule of law culture.  And because everything we negotiate assumes the enforcement of certain agreements and non-enforcement of others, of particular interest to negotiators and ADR practitioners - arbitration agreements

    SCOTUS whitepapers below:

    Diversity Hiring


    Diversity on the Court

    Gays in the Military

    Corporate Rights (Citizen's United)


    Executive Power

    Kagan's Qualifications to Serve





    "Politics is the art of saying 'we made it tougher' without making it really tough.

    Volcker Rule under Attack as Lawmakers Seek Loophole:  full analysis from Bloomberg at the link; double-speak excerpt below.

    “There’s pressure from both sides to toughen and to soften the Volcker rule, and politics is the art of compromise,” said Lawrence Kaplan, an attorney at Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP in Washington. “Running a hedge fund wasn’t the problem, and this way they’re saying all of it wasn’t bad, you just can’t use too much of your capital on it. Politics is the art of saying ‘we made it tougher’ without making it really tough.”

    Thanks to the dynamic and brilliant Judy Martin for hipping me to this.  I think I need investment guru Whitney Johnson to explain it to me.

    Ladies????  Or anyone else who'd care to explain the Volcker Bill to me, please chime in!


    "Winning" Workplace Arguments is Really Just Consensus Building

    In  Workplace Negotiating Secrets From Bethenny's Shrink over at Forbes.com, Xavier Amador, the therapist on Bethany Getting Married? gives his "secrets" for "winning" workplace arguments.  What Amador suggests (below and at the link) is really just collaborative interest-based negotiation, but his catchy acronym - LEAP - is a good one to remember for all negotiations, whether you're brokering peace in the Middle East or getting your guy to put the toilet seat down.  If you read the article, and I highly recommend doing so,  you'll see that no one is "winning" any "argument."  Rather, people are finding ways to accomodate all of their needs simultaneously.


    Amador, 50, uses many of the same methods with both individuals and corporate clients. His book I'm Right, You're Wrong, Now What?, lays out a strategy he calls LEAP, for listen, empathize, agree, partner. It applies to salary negotiations, to disagreements with partners or colleagues or underlings and even to challenging sales assignments.

    An acronym enthusiast ("acronyms help me to remember"), Amador says the first step is "L," for listen. That may sound simple, but often it's very hard. In sales, for instance. Before he became a psychologist, Amador worked for an Arizona company that sold solar heating. Rather than simply trying to push his product, he found he got further if he patiently listened to his potential clients' objections.

    Negotiation as Rationalizing Numbers

    Old.  But.  Priceless.

    Women's Attitudes, Skills and Fears about Negotiation

    The numbers below represent an unscientific poll of women in business concerning their skills, attitudes and fears about negotiation.  The women were asked to rate their agreement with the statements on a 1-10 scale with 1 being the least agreement and 10 being the greatest agreement.  The numbers represent the average answer.










    Here is an Excel spreadsheet of the data collected in this assessment.

    Continue Reading

    Closing the Wage Gap Rocking Your World

    As the July She Negotiates workshop nears, I realize that the one force that might discourage women from participating is the same force the workshop is designed to (and will inevitably) resolve: the effect of the recession on women's already reduced earning power.

    But let's take a look at what's at stake here - your economic future.

    Why this is Mission Critical

    The wage and income gap is stuck at 33% despite the gains made by women in business and the professions over the past thirty years. That's simply unacceptable to me. And because I know the reason why, I've committed myself to spreading the word and teaching the skills necessary to close that gap NOW.

    You Know Why the Wage Gap Persists?

    I believe I do.  I'm no social scientist, but I am an expert negotiator with a master of laws degree in conflict resolution and five years of full-time experience facilitating the negotiated resolution of commercial litigation.

    I've been teaching women to negotiate for the past two years and here's what I learned - both on the ground and through extensive research.

    Continue Reading

    No Woman, No Matter How Successful, Ever Has a Pure Business Negotiation

    Yesterday at the She Negotiates blog, I posted two quotes by a woman executive (President and CEO) who is blazingly successful in one of the most male-dominated industries in the world - construction of sports arenas.

    Here they are again:

    After she’d been in business for 15 years, a colleague told [Alvarado] she had two problems.

    [Y]ou have a Hispanic company name, so you may be stereotyped [and] when you walk into a conference room to negotiate, you look like a woman.

    When her son was five and asked if he wanted to grow up and be a “contractor like your mother and build sports facilities and schools,” he said “with disdain,

    “No, that’s women’s work.”

    Ba ba bump! (rim shot). Or as the old feminists used to say, "click."

    My partner in negotiation-for-women crime is life-balance coach, Lisa Gates

    Continue Reading

    Anchoring and Framing: They Work So Well Their Use is an Ethical Act

    Check out The Impact of the Irrelevant on Decision Making in today's New York Times.  It's not just another article about the surprising power of anchoring and framing.  It suggests that "framing a discussion" is so powerful that it is "an ethically significant act." 

    As economics Professor Robert Frank notes:

    even conservative political commentators have begun to point out [that] Republicans have lately been far more aggressive in stretching [framing's] traditional boundaries. When Sarah Palin said that if health care reform legislation were adopted, her parents and her child with Down syndrome “will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care,” most people probably realized the president had made no such proposal. Her statement nonetheless shifted the terms of the debate, making it harder for legislators to focus on genuinely relevant issues.

    Is there any cure?  Can't we simply raise our level of discourse to include critical analysis?  Yes, answers Frank, but only if social sanctions are attached.

    Economists have long recognized that social sanctions are often an effective alternative to legal and regulatory remedies. As Adam Smith argued, moral sentiments are extremely powerful drivers of human behavior. People who know they’ll be ridiculed for telling untruths are more likely to show restraint.

    Some social sanctions are less effective than others. In recent years, the most conspicuous public falsehoods have been ridiculed by independent bloggers and Comedy Central’s faux news hosts. But television and Internet audiences are highly segmented. Many of Jon Stewart’s targets may never hear his riffs about them, or may even view them as badges of honor.

    That’s why it’s important for the circle of critics to widen — and why we need to remember that framing a discussion appropriately is “an ethically significant act.”

    Go forth, fellow lawyers, mediators and negotiators.  Anchor and reframe, but do so ethically! 



    Non-news of the week with an exclamation point: GC's should negotiate their legal fees

    Wow!  Does any general counsel in the land truly not know this?  Here's the law.com headline - with emphasis, mind you, as if gold had been discovered in them thar hills.


    'Enormous' Bargaining Chip: Survey Shows Law Firms Charging Clients Different Rates — for the Same Work!

    Law firms' corporate clients are not created equal, if billing rates are any indication.

    Firms are charging different hourly rates to different clients for doing similar work, according to an analysis of more than $4 billion in law firm billings that will be released in September.

    Differences in billing rates are just some of the preliminary findings in the "Real Rate Report" by CT TyMetrix and The Corporate Executive Board. The report examines billing from more than 4,000 law firms, 50,000 individual billers, and 18.9 million invoice items from 2007 to 2009.

    The data was collected from CT TyMetrix's clients. Law firms and corporate legal departments have been using the company's web-based financial and e-commerce software to handle ebilling and matter management for more than 10 years. About $30 billion in legal invoices have flowed through the company's systems, said Julie Peck, vice president of corporate strategy and market development at CT TyMetrix.

    And the results of the report, once released, will be aimed at helping general counsel make better decisions about how and where to spend their money. The findings will be broken down by several factors, including geography, law firm size, staffing, and the types of matters handled.

    "It will give general counsel an enormous amount of bargaining power," Peck said.

    Read more of this is this is news to you here!

    Ask for Something Every Day for a Year!

    Join Roxana at the Daily Asker- Take the challenge:  Can I ask for something everyday for a year?

    I've just signed up for 365 days of asking.

    Continue Reading

    Kagan and the Magic Number Three

    More important than her religious background (Jewish) her Ivy League Credentials (Harvard) her progressive, liberal or conservative Democrat political leanings, is the prospect that Kagan's addition to the Supreme Court will result in the magic number of three women on the United States Supreme Court. 

    Why is three the magic number?

    Recent studies have shown that it takes three women corporate board members to avoid the deliterious effects of group think on corporate decision making - my own supposition on the question "why three" being that one or two women easily risk falling into male group-think.  This isn't male bashing, by the way. I assume three men on an otherwise all woman's board would have a similar performance enhancing effect.  

    Continue Reading

    Mothers Day Issue of Blawg Review #263 is Up and Running at the She Negotiates Blog

    We’re celebrating Mothers Day by posting Blawg Review #263 at the She Negotiates Blog for one obvious and some not so obvious reasons.  The obvious reason is the word “She.”  The not-so-obvious reasons are:  (1) Mother’s Day was a peace and reconciliation movement before it was a holiday; and, (2) peace exists only when we have the political will to seek and the negotiation tools achieve the resolution of conflict.

    In addition to the main post, we've also posted Blawg Review #263 on our She Networks, She Succeeds, She Transforms and She Resolves pages (up at the top of the blog).

    She Negotiates Blawg Review #263

    She’s She Negotiates, the newest blawg on the block, taking the baton from The Public Intellectual’s brilliant Blawg Review #262, and getting ready  to host Blawg Review #263 for Mother’s Day 2010

    She negotiates Blawg Review.

    In addition to celebrating mothers, we’ll be celebrating all women who negotiate (do you know any who don’t?) posting Blawg Review #263 on all of She Negotiates' pages –  She Networks, She Resolves, She Succeeds and She Transforms, as well as on the She Negotiates posting page.

    So if you’re a legal blogger and you have Blawg Review envy, now’s your big chance.  Join She Negotiates to Power Her Dreams (it’s free!) and leave your link at the group “Blawg Review #263.”

    The first woman legal blogger who joins She Negotiates to Power Her Dreams and leaves a May 3-week post beginning with the words, she negotiates, she succeeds, she networks, she resolves or she transforms will win a free ticket to the Negotiation for Women Workshop at the Pasadena Women’s City Club on June 10 (7-10 p.m.) with attorney-mediator, arbitrator and negotiation trainer Victoria Pynchon and east-coast business negotiation guru John Tinghitella.

    The second woman legal blogger will win a free autographed copy of the book (due out in the very late Spring) A is for A**hole, the Grownups’ ABC’s of Conflict Resolution.

    The third woman legal blogger will win a reduced priced month-long online personally tutored She Negotiates! Workshop at Craving Balance ($175 for a course costing $375).  As with the last workshop Victoria Pynchon taught with life-balance coach and trainer Lisa Gates, they guarantee that any woman fully participating in the course will make back its cost within thirty days of taking it or her money back!

    So get ready to celebrate the woman who negotiate, network, resolve, succeed, and transform with a nod to mom for Blawg Review #263!

    What women are saying about the Craving Balance Negotiation Course:

    "I learned more during this hands-on negotiating course than in another higher priced class.  Victoria and Lisa helped me make the emotional changes necessary to demand a higher value for my work, and taught a step by step process for getting the most from sales negotiations." 

    Linda Gryczan, Helena, Montana



    Why "She Negotiates"

    There's a new blog on the block called She Negotiates

    Why she negotiates?

    The “She Negotiates” blog is dedicated to the proposition that “all [people] are created equal . . . [and that to procure the full benefits of citizenship, including economic opportunity] women must themselves become accountable for a substantial portion of the existing income and wage gap that persists with alarming tenacity two full generations (forty years) after the commencement of the Second Wave Women’s Movement.

    Although implicit bias continues to dog the retention and promotion of women in society’s most powerful economic, political, and professional fields, as we did forty years ago, we must once again raise to consciousness the way we limit ourselves by failing to accurately assess our own market value, name it, and, through the negotiation of the price of our services and salaries for our employment, claim it with the same sense of entitlement as do our male peers.

    Although this is a gender challenge, it is a community issue.  Both men and women suffer when women’s work is not appropriately valued in the marketplace.  Despite the many and considerable advances in the status of women over the past forty years, men continue to suffer disproportionately the primary economic burden of providing the lion’s share of the economic support in American families.  When women know their market value and demand to be recompensed accordingly, this disproportionate burden on men will decline, if not disappear.

    Men’s required focus on work stymies their development of networks of supportive intimates, networks that women (naturally) develop and that account for significantly longer and healthier lives.  Men’s required focus on work also contributes to higher rates of heart disease.  As the Harvard Medical School’s Men’s Health Watch recently reported:

    Work stress and hostility. It’s a common explanation for excess male mortality, and there may be something to it. Indeed, the stereotype of the harried, hard-driving, overworked male executive has a basis in fact, and work stress can increase the risk of hypertension, heart attack, and stroke. In fact, karoshi, “death from overwork,” is a recognized diagnosis in Japan, and it triggers compensatory payments to survivors. Type A behavior, stress, hostility, and anger have all been implicated as heart disease risk factors, and these traits tend to have a higher prevalence in men than women.

    To help women help themselves (and the entire male population) [I've] begun teaching women the negotiation skills to become full workplace – and economic – partners with their male peers.  In every Women’s Negotiation Seminar and Workshop [I have]  taught – online and in person – women report back that they recouped far more than the cost of the program within thirty days by ascertaining their true marketplace value and negotiating it.

    My online month-long coached negotiation for women course (“She Negotiates“) begins on June 1 at Craving Balance.  [I] will also be teaching Power Negotiation for Women at the Pasadena City Women’s Club on June 10, 2010.  Please bookmark the date for this later in-person, three-hour seminar – web site for the course will be up soon!

    Negotiate a Pay Raise During a Recession? You Bet!

    Can't ask for a raise during an economic downturn?  If the recession doesn't stop insurance executives from increasing their own pay and benefits by more than 50% (to $13.1 million) why should it stop you?

    Just in case you were manning the Antarctic Ice Station at the time of the revelations prompting this post, here's the L.A. Times Executive Summary.

    WellPoint Inc. revealed Friday that it boosted . . . chief executive [Angela Braly's] compensation 51% last year, even as the health insurance giant prepared massive rate increases in California that embroiled it in a national controversy over skyrocketing health insurance costs.

    The proposed rate increases of up to 39% in individual policies turned the insurer into a flash point in the healthcare overhaul battle, breathing new life into President Obama's effort at a crucial time in the debate.

    Continue Reading

    Can You Ever REALLY Know Your Adversary's Bottom Line?

    It was 8 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.

    During the day, the parties worked well together. They agreed on a protocol for the review of the doctor's financial records as a condition to settlement. We'd also made good progress in reducing the gap between the parties' initially intransigent positions. Dr. X's last offer had been $100,000 -- $25,000 every quarter for the next calendar year secured by a stipulated judgment.

    But now both sides were tired and frustrated. They each wanted to make a final "take it or leave it" offer. $124K by the HMO and one hundred by Dr. X. The parties said they could go no further but I was pretty certain Dr. X could be coaxed as high as $115.

    In separate caucus, I'd already asked Mr. HMO if he'd take 110.

    "I can't even take $123," he replied. "I think it's time to tell Dr. X that it's $124 or we walk."

    This is one of the most important moments in a negotiation. A time when the parties, and the mediator, need a good way of judging whether one or more of the parties is bluffing.

    "I have to call for more authority," they'll say. And sometimes you'll know and sometimes you won't, whether they're calling the home office or a dead number. Like that scene in Fargo where the car salesman leaves the nervous buyers to ask his "manager" for concessions when he's really just taking a break to talk about the upcoming basketball game.

    On the internet, how DO you know whether it's a dog or the CEO on the other end of the line?

    Aside from stating the obvious truth -- you never really know -- there are some ways to track down something close to the actual truth. The best way I know is to ask for detail. Story. I think we're hard wired for narrative and that if we are misled by it we're not paying close enough attention. As Mark Twain said, the good thing about the truth is you don't have to remember it.

    The HMO's alleged bottom line continued to nag at me. "You can't go to $123?" I asked quizzically. "That seems odd to me. Why is that?"

    "Well," said Mr. HMO, pausing as if he thought it might not be a good thing to tell. "To tell you the truth, we overpaid one of our board members, Dr. Y, too." He was sheepish now. Surely someone, maybe many people, had paid for these errors with their careers. "I can't tell you by how much." He looked at his attorney who nodded to him to go on. "I can tell you that Dr. Y re-paid 62% of what we overpaid him. And 124 is 62% of 200. I can't cut anyone else a better deal than that." He paused. "Obviously," he said.

    "Obviously," I echoed. "Makes sense." I smiled, "I do hope you've got that bookkeeping thing under control now."

    Everyone laughed and I went back to the defendant confident in my assessment that 124 was truly a drop dead number; that Mr. HMO was highly likely to walk unless Dr. X put another $24K on the table.

    And that's what the case settled for.

    As I drove down Westwood Blvd., late for dinner with friends, I reminded myself that you can tell whether it's the guy with authority or someone's dog Fido on the other end of the phone. Because even in this big anonymous town, we know the truth by its detail. And really, only a writer or a sociopath could make this %$#^ up.



    Transforming Rejections into New Business with "Influence Letters" from ForbesWoman

    The following article is a must-read for these economically challenging times. Excerpt below and link to entire article at end of excerpt.  This also works for consultants, attorneys, trainers, mediators, and anyone else who is marketing their services to clients.

    by Susan Adams

    The woman was interviewing for a lucrative position as director of a sales team. After having three great meetings full of lively conversation about how she'd handle the job, she was optimistic. But then came the fourth and final interview, with the company's executive vice president. Things were going swimmingly until the interviewee asked a question designed to lock in the offer: "Do you have any issues with my candidacy?"
    "Frankly, yes," the executive replied. "You're good with people, but you don't have the analytic background we need. Not only would you need to steer the sales team, but you'd need to analyze information and data too." Shocked, the woman left the meeting realizing the offer she'd thought was in the bag was gone.

    In a high-pressure job search, is it ever possible to turn a no into a yes?

    Absolutely, says Robert Hellmann, a career coach at the Five O'Clock Club, a career counseling firm, who also teaches career development at New York University.  Hellmann was coaching that very woman, and he helped her turn the situation around.

    After every job interview, Hellmann advises, you should write not a thank-you note but what he calls an "influence letter." In this case, that letter became his client's key to getting back into the running

    The letter should always address the conversation you've had and your skills and experience. First, in the interview, you should ask what challenges the company is facing and what the new hire will need to do as soon as she starts work. In the influence letter, address those challenges concretely, ideally by describing similar challenges you've tackled at a previous job and how you handled them.

    Continue reading here.


    Finesse the Impasse by Changing the Deal: Advice from a Former Disney GC

    "Finesse the Impasse by Changing the Deal" -- Negotiation Wisdom from Lou Meisinger

    (right, subversive wall crossing by Bansky)

    Former Executive Vice-President and General Counsel to The Walt Disney Company, entertainment law heavy-weight Lou Meisinger (now Judge Meisinger thank you very much) gave me the best impasse-breaking advice ever.

    "One of the best ways of breaking negotiation impasse in litigation," Lou casually observed, "is to finesse the legal action by transforming the litigation into an opportunity to make a deal."

    I'd just finished digesting "negotiation leverage belongs to the party who is perceived to be the one most able to afford the consequences of a failed negotiation," and now Lou was delivering the holy grail of Breaking Impasse. It was like being given a third lung. I could breathe again.

    "Transform the litigation into an opportunity to create a business deal." What did that mean?

    Three Dimensional Negotiation

    On the same day I had this impasse transformation conversation with Lou, I started reading 3-D Negotiation by Harvard Business School Professors David A. Lax< and James K. Sebenius(read the Introduction to the Book Here).

    Lou's advice to "finesse the impasse by changing the deal" is discussed in great, articulate and academic detail by Lax and Sebenius. Before going there, it's important to know what they mean by the three dimensions of a deal. Those dimensions, they counsel, are tactics, deal design and set-up.


    "Tactics" are strategies exercised at the bargaining table, such as improving communication, building trust, countering hardball plays and bridging cross-cultural divides.

    Deal Design

    At its simplest, deal design involves the invention and structuring of agreements that create greater value for all parties, meet the parties' objectives better than easily conceived alternatives and are more durable that agreements reluctantly accepted by weaker parties. "More durable" means no future litigation over their meaning.


    Set up is the architecture of the deal that ensures the most favorable scope, by involving the right parties, addressing the right issues, and considering all no-deal options. It also involves negotiation sequencing and basic process choices.

    Staples Finesses Impasse with the Venture Capitalists

    I won't tell Lax and Sebenius' entire Staples office supply store story. You'll have to read the book to get the rest of it. But it's a great example of Lou's advice to finesse impasse by changing the deal.

    Staples was the original big-box office supply store. Like all wildly successful early entrepreneurial successes, Staples soon had a formidable competitor, Office Depot. To ward off the competition, Staples needed expansion capital and it needed it fast. All of the venture capital firms and the investment bankers were valuing Staples at pretty much the same price point, a price point its founder considered unacceptable. So he went to the top -- Harvard Business School Professor Bill Sahlman, an expert on venture firms and start-up financing.

    Sahlman recommended breaking the impasse by changing the deal-design and the set-up by finding new players and re-sequencing the negotiation. Together, he and Staples founder identified other investors who were flush with money and potentially interested in better ways to deploy it.

    Sahlman suggested contracting the limited partners in the venture capital firms who were then holding firm on pricing -- pension funds and insurance companies. Wealthy individuals, he suggested, might also pay more for the opportunity to obtain a piece of Staples' action.

    Because the VC firms charged hefty management fees (usually 20% of the profits) by offering the deal directly to a VC's investors, Staples could offer 100% of the profits for the same share of their investment in the Staple's pie, increasing the actual value of each share by 20%.

    As Lax and Sebenius stress, this result could not have been achieved by negotiations "at the table" or even with the originally identified stake-holders. What Staples did was to "favorably reset the table with right new parties whose interests were far more aligned with the deal he wanted to do." Then it sequenced the process by going back to the VC's and the investment banks, saying, "this thing is filling up fast; do you guys want to play or not?"


    How, you ask, can this paradigm be applied to litigation where the players are already fixed and can't simply walk away if they do not reach a deal? By transforming the litigation into a business opportunity as Lou suggests.

    If the parties to commercial litigation realize their lawsuit can serve as one of many bargaining chips that either party can deploy to create a business opportunity for both, what originally looked like a brick wall of impasse is transformed into dozens, even hundreds of doors to a more profitable and productive future. That's the way you get yourself and your clients out of the litigation lock-box. Just walk out the door.

    Negotiation as Poker Game for Your Next Law Firm Retreat

    Learn how to play Texas Hold 'Em (or win more often) while maximizing your negotiation strategies and tactics at your next firm retreat with the Pynchon Negotiation Seminar's "Negotiation as Poker Game."  For testimonials and pricing, go to the Settle It Now! website and click on "Negotiation Training."  

    Negotiation as Poker Game
    The training for which this particular power point presentation was prepared was tailored for an organization of women healthcare executives.  Here's what they had to say about it:
    The women at the X2 Healthcare Network were so enthused by the concepts Victoria presented in her keynote, "Winning" the Negotiation, that we are planning on her full-day workshop as the focal point to our next annual retreat. Victoria's style was engaging and participatory, and we all went away wanting more of her strategies, tactics and entertainment.  Gale Wilson-Steele of Health Media Syndicate ~ a MEDSEEK Partner
    For negotiation tips and strategies in bite-sized pieces, fan my new Facebook page for Pynchon Negotiation Seminars here!



    Improving Your Game to Get What You Want How You Want It

    If you've been thinking, "but I'm just a mom" or "my job is ruled by pay scales" or "secretaries can't negotiate" -- think again! And register for the 4-week virtual learning and journaling course in the Craving Balance Learning Community.

    When I was ten years old, my best friend, Steve and I moved our nascent tennis careers from the blacktop of neighborhood streets to the local high school's courts.  I'd never had a single lesson but believed I was pretty darn good.  

    Then came tennis season in high school.  One warm Southern California morning, I was showing off my strong backhand to Coach White when she yelped, “where did you learn to play like that?”

    “It’s how I’ve always played,” I replied, waiting for the praise I knew must follow.

    “Well, it’s all wrong,” she scowled.  “I’ve never seen anyone hit a backhand like that before in my entire life.” 

    It wasn’t a titanic struggle, but I did mightily resist giving up the skill I’d been honing since elementary school.  It worked for me.  Why did she want me to change?  Not only would I be required to alter behavior that was, by now, reflexive, I’d have to spend some serious time being a really crappy beginning tennis player again. 

    Nearly forty years later I'd have a jarringly similar experience taking my first mediation class after negotiating settlements for more than two decades.  I had to spend a little bit of time being a really crappy beginning negotiator again.  And I'm pretty certain that will also happen to most of you.

    That ingratiation tactic, for instance.  The one in which we give up power for sympathy.  It's worked   pretty well with our husbands or family or children.  Sure, they’ve come to resent the manner in which we get our way and they give up theirs, but time is short; we're overwhelmed with raising a family or climbing the corporate ladder; keeping our business above water or getting along with a bully boss in the workplace.  We’re not going to have to give up our old reliable techniques are we? 

    Yes we are!


    Because new skills have now been repeatedly tested by negotiation professors and coaches at the best business schools in the country, skills that are being used by Fortune 500 executives and international diplomats to better effect that the daily news would suggest.  Skills that will work for you. Promise.  Guaranteed.  

    What I think will most surprise you the most is that the most effective negotiation strategies and tactics are pretty much what we women are already good at.  We naturally look for opportunities in which everyone gets what they want.  We’ll just tweak that existing talent a little and make it more powerful by bringing it to consciousness. 

    What we’re not tremendously good at is asking for what we want.  And because we haven’t practiced that skill, we haven’t learned how powerful it can be.  Nor have we learned how to do it without sounding bossy or bitchy or whiney.  Sorry for the stereotypes, but we are judged according to them.  One of the lessons in this course is how to get the concessions we cannot get by being bossy, bitchy, and, whiney  or that we do get but that we're later punished for in surprising and baffling ways.

    Isn’t that much easier, my coach asked after only a few weeks of play.  And see how much stronger your stroke is and how many more games you’re winning?

    Yes!  I did see.  And although I didn't go on to a career in tennis, I’d learned my first genuinely valuable life lesson.  Be ready to give up that which doesn’t work no matter how fond of it I am.  Be ready to learn that which does work.  And rule the court!

    The Lessons of Week Two

    • winning negotiation strategies - getting to the table
      • the right people
      • at the right time
      • with the right interests
      • and the right preparation
    • at the table negotiation tactics, including:
      • anchoring
      • framing
      • strategic concessions
      • demands for reciprocity
      • competitive vs. interest-based bargaining
      • the power of "why"

    Negotiating the Millenium as We Continue to Honor National Women's History Month

    Differences in Men's and Women's Conflict Negotiation Styles

    I'm blogging about gender and negotiation this month because March is National Women's History Month and March 8th was the 100th anniversary of International Women's Day (commenced in 1910, a full decade before the Nineteenth Amendment would grant U.S. women the right to vote). 

    Today I stumbled over the post Women Deal with Conflict Differently than Men, reporting on a study done by the Program on Negotiation at Harvard in 2008.  Results of the study showed the following similarities between men and women including:

    • Integrating, the ability to meet the needs of both parties; and,
    • Compromising as a strategy, except women showed a "high level of agreement that every issue has room for negotiation"

    The differences included:

    • women's tendency to choose equal distributions when compromising which the researchers apparently ascribed to women's greater concern with fairness;
    • competitiveness - with men scoring 25% more competitive than their female counterparts
    • "smoothing," with women engaging in that behavior 20% more of the time than men - smoothing being defined as "giving in to the other party while ignoring one's own needs"
    • avoiding or withdrawing with women doing so 30% more than men
    • expressing feeling, with women apparently doing so "more" than men but no percentages are provided

    We'll be working with gender differences through the end of the month of March and will likely discuss this data in more detail later.

    Resources on Women and Negotiation in Honor of Women's History Month

    I'm sure you've noticed that we're celebrating negotiating women here this month in honor of International Women's Day and National Women's History Month.  Other than tomorrow night's free negotiating women teleseminar with super coach Lisa Gates, I'm celebrating by posting in one place all of my articles on negotiating women.

    The Power of Beauty

    Nature gives you the face you have at 20; it is up to you to merit the face you have at 50. -- Coco Chanel A local judge who has four beautiful young law students working for him this summer...

    Tips from Forbes & a Word with Women: Negotiate Your First Salary

    If you're entering the job market, you'll want to check out Forbes' Magazine's Tips for Negotiating Your First Salary. If you do not negotiate your first salary, you stand to lose half a million dollars over...

    Ask for It: How Women Can Use the Power of Negotiation to Get What They Really Want

    I didn't realize until I got onto the plane out of Seattle that Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever -- our morning plenary session speakers (Women Don't Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide) -- have written a new book -- Ask...

    Negotiating Your Mid-Life Career Crisis with Career Coach Lisa Gates

    Practicing law, particularly litigation, is often frustrating, sometimes humiliating, and frequently simply dispiriting. On the other hand, the practice of law can be thrilling, intellectually stimulating, challenging, absorbing, and a darn good way to make a good living. When you...

    Is Hillary Negotiating Her Withdrawal? So Says Cokie

    From Women on the Web's Conversation Today Cokie Roberts: 'Hillary Is Negotiating Her Withdrawal' with Lesley Stahl Q&A with ABC News correspondent Cokie Roberts. Excerpt below: LESLEY: Let’s talk about Hillary. I’m wondering, how do you explain..

    Must Read for All Women Negotiating Law Firm Life

    Below is my review in The Complete Lawyer of Lauren Stiller Rikleen's must-read book Ending the Gauntlet: Removing Barriers to Women's Success in the Law. Concluding paragraph: At bottom, this book calls for management practices that will benefit all attorneys...

    Clinton Speaks on 88th Anniversary of Women's Suffrage

    (Right, women protesting, 1912. My own grandmother was 12 years old at the time this photo was taken. By the time she was old enough to vote in 1921, she could vote) Why women's voting rights and Hillary Clinton's DNC...

    Negotiating Women at ForbesWoman

    If you're a certain age, you'll remember women's magazines as mostly "Can This Marriage Be Saved" (The Ladies Home Journal to which PWNSC members Cathy Scott's and Cordelia Mendoza's mother was always submitting articles) or 101 Things to do with...

    Negotiating Against the Grain of Gender

    Yesterday, we talked about the different negotiation styles of men and women. Today, we're going to explore how men can benefit from learning women-speak and women can benefit from learning man-talk. All of the data relied upon and excerpted below...

    Negotiation 101: Gender War or Gender Peace and Prosperity?

    Although I am indisputably a "woman lawyer," I have never thought of myself in those terms. I'm a lawyer. And I'm a woman. I'm also a writer, a step-mother, a wife, a daughter, a river rafter, and an aficionado of...

    Negotiating Women on New Day Talk Radio Easter Sunday Noon

    (and, yes, I am not only old enough to remember the "Second Wave" Women's Movement, I took a quite serious role in it, first as an unpaid volunteer and later through the federal government's "Program for Local Service" at...

    Negotiating Women: 5th and Final Part

    Thanks again to Vicki Flaugher of SmartWomanGuides.com for inviting me to have this conversation with her about ways in which women can and do maximize their bargaining power. And yes we do talk about negotiating the purchase of an automobile...

    Negotiating Women Part III

    This segment of my interview with Vicki Flaughter is primarily about why women don't negotiate - to their substantial economic detriment - (see Women Don't Ask Here) and what they can do about it....

    Negotiating Women Part II

    In part two of Vicki Flaugher's interview with me, we discuss ways in which women can comfortably respond to aggressive zero-sum distributive bargainers and negotiate better business deals using their natural strengths. I'd like to once again thank Vicki Flaugher...

    Negotiating Women: Never Negotiate Out of Fear, But Never Fear to Negotiate --

    Video below is part I of an interview on negotiation challenges, strategies and tactics for women with Vicki Flaugher, founder of SmartWoman Guides. The full audio of the video is here along with Ms. Flaugher's kind comments about our conversation....

    Negotiating Women: Free Teleseminar at Craving Balance

    How to Negotiate Anything: Free Intro Thursday, Mar 18, '10 8pm EST Some researchers say that women's failure to negotiate working conditions, salary or other compensation--along with their hesitancy to seek what they're worth when they do negotiate--is one of...

    Women Bloggers Proclaim National Women's History Month

    Whereas American women of every race, class, and ethnic background have made historic contributions to the growth and strength of our Nation in countless recorded and unrecorded ways; Whereas American women have played and continue to play a critical...

    Update on Gender Diversity in the Judiciary and in ADR

    When I posted Negotiating Gender: Why So Few Women Neutrals? I had not yet found a source for the statistical representation of women neutrals on the American Arbitration Association Panel. I've now located an article on the AAA website from...

    Negotiating Gender: Why So Few Women Neutrals?

    Although most of the major providers of alternative dispute resolution services tout their commitment to diversity in the ranks of their neutrals, the coloration of nearly all ADR panels continues to be white; the nationalities European; and the gender male....

    Women, Negotiation and the Persistent Wage Gap

    Thanks to Ed. at Blawg Review for passing along this (somewhat rambling but well worth watching) lecture at Stanford University by Deborah Kolb, the Deloitte Ellen Gabriel Professor for Women and Leadership at the Simmons College School of Management....


    A New Negotiation Blog - The Critical Path - Takes Flight

    Litigating and trying complex construction disputes requires visionary strategic talent; incisive tactical skill; wise management abilities; and, dogged persistence.  Now construction litigator, trial attorney and mediator Ron White brings those qualities to the settlement of complex construction disputes with his newly launched blog, The Critical Path, Tools for Resolving Construction Disputes.

    Take a look at Ron's most recent post, Negotiations and the Samurai Code:  Seven Habits of Highly Successful Negotiators.

    I especially like the opening "habit" - vision. Below is an excerpt, but you'll want to stroll on over to Ron's new shop to check out the entire post.  While you're there, welcome Ron to the ADR and Construction Law Blogosphere.  I long ago told him that we're like a small town in Iowa where people still leave their doors open and the welcome wagon arrives with lists of local services; good advice; and, baked goods. Don't make a liar out of me!

    "A successful negotiator," Ron writes

    has outstanding vision; he sees both the strengths and weaknesses of his case. He has the capacity to look beyond the narrow focus of advocacy and peer into the broad spectrum of possible outcomes through the eyes of the judge or the jury. He meticulously evaluates the law and facts advocated by his opponent, knowing, as did the samurai, that “You must understand the conditions on the opposite shore to comprehend your side of the river.” This perspective minimizes negotiating mistakes, which, studies have shown, occur more frequently with plaintiffs, but that when defendants do make them, they are really big mistakes resulting in awards much higher than plaintiff’s last pre-trial settlement offer.

    Two New Blogs to Help You "Win" Your Settlement Negotiation

    Yes, Virginia, lawyers do "win" mediated settlement negotiations every work day.  They do so by:

    1. their reputation for success at trial;
    2. their ability to choose the right moment to first discuss settlement;
    3. their ability to "control" their team and their client ("control" being a legal term for good client relations arising from top notch client communication skills);
    4. their negotiation skill set - both in terms of long-term strategy and "at the table" tactics;
    5. their persuasive skill set - both with opposing counsel and with the mediator;
    6. their ability to conduct a risk-benefit analysis that approximates the true likelihood of their probable success at trial;
    7. their determination to make aggressive but reasonable first offers;
    8. their possession of and willingness to stick to a set of flexible "bottom lines" that give them sufficient room to "horse trade" and "hang the meat low enough for the dog to smell it;
    9. their ability to bring the right people to the table at the right time; and,
    10. their ability to walk away without dramatics if the other side is unwilling to negotiate in the realm of reality.

    Some of these skills are in all litigators' arsenals.  Where most litigators are the weakest is in the negotiation of settlements.  I know it not only because it was my greatest area of weakness ("I'm paid to win not to settle") but because I see it evidenced in mediation when attorneys bargain half the day away in the useless strato- and nano-spheres.

    Here are two new resources you should have at hand every working day.  "Having blog resources at hand," by the way, means having a google or other news reader to send you RSS feeds. 

    Decision Tree Analysis - the Decision Tree Analysis Blog by PaperChace.  There's a ten-day free trial of PaperChace's decision tree analysis software for mediators, a free trial I'll take advantage of once the $^%@# book is finished (any day now, really).  Laywers love numbers in the way only people who don't understand them can.  I've had cases settle promptly as soon as everyone has put themselves to the task of making numeric estimates of their chances of success on the merits at any given stage of the litigation.  For making the uncertain certain and depressing overly optimistic client expectations there's nothing quite like numbers.  Do check it out.

    There's another mediation blog to read as well, but not simply "yet another" blog by yet another mediator.  This is Lee Jay Berman, one of the best and busiest mediators in town, the teacher of thousands in Pepperdine's internationally known and respected "Mediating the Litigated Case" and President of his own mediation think-tank and training station - the American Institute of Mediation.

    The blog, Eye on Conflict, will deliver to you free of charge the wisdom, education and training you'd otherwise pay thousands of dollars for.  Listen, I spent two full years at the Straus Institute earning my LL.M in dispute resolution and every time I talk to Lee Jay he tells me something that improves my ability to help lawyers negotiate settlement 100%.  Today Lee Jay mourns the passing of a giant in our field - Richard Millen.  As you read Lee Jay's tribute, you come to understand just how deeply embedded he and his vision are in mediation theory and practice in Southern California.

    Put these two dynamite resources in your news reader and be as good a settlement negotiator as you are a litigator and trial attorney.



    Negotiating Gender: The Old White Men Speak

    And they do so in favor of diversity.  See commercial arbitrator and mediator F. Peter Phillips' November 2006 National Law Journal article:  ADR Continental Drift:  It remains a while, male game.  I promised prescriptions for change and here are a few sent to me by Peter Phillips this morning.  Peter was, as I am now, a member of the CPR Diversity Committee.

    Once again, based upon my personal experience and that of tens of thousands of other women in commercial legal practice I continue to believe that until we are fairly represented on commercial ADR panels, both arbitration and mediation, we cannot expect significant change.  This may happen as a matter of the natural "aging" process of the field.  The ADR field looks now exactly like the legal field looked to me when I entered it in 1980.  Not surprising given the fact that ADR is historically a "retirement" field.  That is already changing, to beneficial effect.

    For the adventuresome, Peter's pro-active recommendations below. I highly recommend, by the way, that you follow Peter's Business Conflict Blog.  It's one of the best out there.

    (screen shot of google search for our local legal rag's "top 50 neutrals)

    What if the country’s leading law firms—from which so many of our leading mediators and arbitrators emerge—had an incentive to encourage more diverse members of the firm to enter this field?

    ■ What if a benchmark survey were conducted to determine how often law firms suggest mediation to their clients; how often mediation is in fact tried; and how often diverse mediators are proposed to clients by outside lawyers and ADR provider organizations?

    ■ What if the property casualty insurance industry, as the largest consumer of legal services and of ADR services, conveyed its expectation that the firms that insurers pay for, when they propose mediators and arbitrators, will be expected to propose diverse individuals?

    ■ What if influential national ADR organizations combined forces to better reflect their corporate and legal constituents, and meet their customers’ expectations, by sharing information on excellent women and minorities who are not now on their lists, but should be?

    ■ What if initiatives were undertaken to encourage particularly promising women, younger people and minorities from firms to attend ADR colloquia, seminars and other events in order to network, learn and advance their visibility and recognition among the ADR community, as well as to contribute diverse views and perspectives?

    ■ What if a mentor program were designed and funded, pursuant to which younger female and minority attorneys could “shadow” established mediators and arbitrators (whether or not they are women or minorities) and establish skills and reputations thereby?

    ■ What if corporations and law firms intentionally engaged younger mediators who are women and minorities in smaller matters, so that those professionals would gain experience as neutrals and be better positioned for the larger cases?

    ■ What if scholarships were established to enable young people to be trained as mediators and arbitrators, with the expectation that a person thus trained would be skilled not only as a neutral, but more generally as a negotiator and client representative in settlement?

    ■ What if a very “early pipeline” were begun, and ADR institutions worked with Street Law Inc. (www.streetlaw.com), a national program that trains high school students in legal issues, or a similar organization to provide materials and information for children to become interested in ADR as a profession?

    It is perplexing that this one aspect of the legal profession—a field that is otherwise so robust, so progressive and so creative—lags behind so miserably in satisfying client expectations for diverse practitioners. But there is no indication that it must be so. And with diligence, creativity and practical action, it will not long be so.

    Here are more diversity resources from CPR.

    Negotiating Prejudice at U.C. San Diego

    Things have changed at my alma mater, U.C. San Diego since I graduated with a degree in Literature and the required minor in literature in a foreign language (German).

    (This spectacular library never fails to deliver nostalgic and artistic chills) 

    We were a small campus with three "colleges" - Revell for those headed to medical school and able to "do math"; Muir for the artistic non-math/science slackers (no requirements; my kind of college and, in point of fact, my college); and "Third" representing both its numeric position in the University's development and its subject matter - third world and urban studies. 

    U.C. San Diego was a small liberal arts college, meant  (as so many colleges yearn) to be, the "Harvard of the West."  You can't "do" Harvard, however, when the beach nearest your school is the only nude beach in town and the Pacific is your eyes' horizon as you study D.H. Lawrence or Bertolt Brecht in small seminar classes in Tioga Hall.  UCSD wasn't just "small" in the mid-70's, it also ran counter to the culture.  Herbert Marcuse, a Marxist philosopher, attracted many others of his political bent, including one of my favorite lit profs from whom I took courses in Kafka; German Literature (in, choke, German); and, creative writing.  He was not only sexily European, he was an heroic figure, having "jumped" the Berlin wall to reach "the West."  Even so, he was no Ayn Rand.  He remained an unreconstructed Marxist, as did most of the Literature faculty.  As taught, Marxism didn't mean "Communism."  It was a means of analysis - primarily economic and political - of literature as it affected the reader rather than, say, analyses that found "hidden messages" in literary "symbols" or sought to psychoanalyze the literary characters themselves. 

    We didn't have fraternities and sororities at UCSD in the early seventies, nor anything other than intramural sports.  My friends at Revell were learning COBAL and FORTRAN.  My lit friends and I took as many classes as we could from the brilliant and eccentric left-wing Lit God Frederic Jameson (Freud, Marx and Science Fiction - I still have my final paper) and we were all taking classes at "Third."  We were left-wing nerds.

    The last time I visited UCSD was a good thirty years after I'd graduated.  The literature department is now a small chocolate brown building at the edge of campus physically dwarfed by the vaulting architecture of the new bio-med buildings, at least one of which was then under construction.

    You get the picture (yes we see).  Literature and philosophy are no longer the leaders of the pack. 

    That's the History; Here's the Prejudice

    As the New York Times reports this morning, things are not going well at my old alma mater.  Shades of my late-60's, early '70's campus life, students have actually "occupied" the Dean's office even though the trigger for the racial dust-up was not University policy but the activities of a few dunderheaded frat boys who staged a "Ghetto Night" to "mock"  Black History Month.  See also the UCSD "Battle the Hate" page.  At the risk of offending all "frat boys," including my husband who was President of his fraternity at Michigan - Phi Epsilon Pi, since merged with (he says) the far better looking Jewish fraternity Zeta Beta Tau - this is what happens when you let Greeks on campus.

    There is my late 60's prejudice, which has managed to survive more than thirty years of experience and education.  And that's a particularly personal prejudice, not one reinforced over hundreds of years of American history.

    I'd say something astute and original about prejudice but I cannot say it as well as my friend and mentor Ken Cloke has in Conflict Revolution.  In his chapter on Diversity and Self-Determination, Cloke explains how prejudice works as concisely as I have ever seen it described:

    1. pick a characteristic
    2. blow it out of proportion
    3. collapse the person back into the characteristic
    4. ignore individual differences and variations
    5. disregard subtleties and complexities
    6. overlook commonalities
    7. match it to your own worst fears
    8. make it cruel

    Conflict Revolution at 115.

    How to combat my prejudice against "frat boys"?

    1. develop a knowledgeable, confident self-identity, and appreciate who they are without needing to feel superior to others
    2. experience comfortable, empathetic interactions with diverse people and ideas
    3. be curious and unafraid of learning about differences and commonalities
    4. feel comfortable collaboratively solving problems and negotiating differences
    5. be aware of biases, stereotypes and discrimination when they occur
    6. stand up for themselves and others in the face of prejudice, without becoming biased in turn
    7. experience diverse affectionate relationships that grow stronger as a result of differences

    Id. at 116.

    That's how we combat prejudice at the personal level.  How about at the institutional level, i.e., the level that would justify UCSD students "occupying" the Dean's office rather than the offending fraternity house?

    For that, I offer the first in a series of videos taken at the last ABA Dispute Resolution Conference of a talk on the "race blind" admissions process at the University of California given by Prof. Cheryl Harris, author of Whiteness as Property.  Professor Harris is a nationally-recognized expert in race theory and anti-discrimination law who teaches Critical Race Theory, Civil Rights, Employment Discrimination, Race-Conscious Remedies and Constitutional Law at the UCLA School of Law (my step-son's alma mater).

    We are all biased by attitudes and opinions formed in our childhoods, our youth, and our early adult-hoods.  Those biases - said to be implicit - limit our ability to become the inclusive society we wish to be; create resentment among large segments of the society; express themselves in diminished opportunities for discriminated classes; and, eventually erupt into violence and lawlessness. 

    We can do better.  I can do better.  And certainly, the students at U.C. San Diego can do better.

    And we can do better rather easily, by raising our implicit biases to consciousness.

    I promise not to diminish "frat boys" ever again.  How about you?  What are your implicit biases?  Wouldn't it be liberating to free yourself of them?  I know I feel better already!

    Negotiating with Difficult People: Taking Your Own Part in It

    As my book nears completion (A is for Asshole, the Grownup's ABC's of Conflict Resolution) I have more and more discussions about its theme, i.e., that "assholes" (and bullies and enemies) are not people but behaviors and not one person but two.

    I've had grown men follow me down the hallway at my mediation home - ADR Services in Century City -  to convince me just how wrong I am about this.  Earlier this week, in yet another conversation on this topic with one of my oldest and most pacific attorney friends, I realized that I needed to differentiate between "assholes" with personality disorders (sociopaths - Tony Sopranoborderlines - Burton and Taylor in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf; and, narcissists - film noir femme fatales such as Barbara Stanwyck in  Double Indemnity) on the one hand and the "rest of us" on the other.  

    It's "the rest of us" that the ABC's of Conflict Resolution is about, i.e., those of us who are capable of behaving like an asshole without being one, as well as we who can unwittingly create, exacerbate or fail to counteract asshole-ishness in others.  

    Our Part in It

    When someone cuts in front of us in line; drives 50 miles an hour through a school zone; behaves boorishly at a party; or, shouts at workplace underlings, is there anyone to "blame" other than the asshole?  Without giving away the revised version of the first chapter, let me first say that we are all blinded to the part we play in disputes by cognitive biases.  Those biases include: 

    • fundamental attribution error (over-attributing intention and under-attributing circumstance to another's harm-causing behavior while over-attributing circumstance and under-attributing intention to our own harm-causing behavior /1;
    • clustering illusion (seeing patterns where none exist); and,
    • confirmation bias (selecting from a vast amount of data only that which confirms our pre-existing opinions)

    These biases play a major role in our perception whether "the other guy" is an "asshole" because the central element of assholishness is intentionality. /2 If I told you that the man who cut in line did so in an emergency room because his daughter was bleeding to death on the sidewalk; that the motorist going 50 miles an hour was being chased by gun-toting mafiosi; that the apparent "boor" was suffering from the sudden onset of a debilitating physical condition; or, that the workplace bully was urging his co-workers to leave a burning building, you wouldn't call any of these characters assholes.

    Mistakes about the intentions and motivations of our fellows, as well as the constraints under which they are working, are so common in the litigated disputes I mediate that I've been forced to acknowledge just how much of other people's behavior is colored by my untested assumptions.  It naturally follows that my part in disputes has loomed much larger in its resolution than it ever did before.  When a fight is poised to break out between me and my husband, for instance, I will much more readily ask myself whether I made enough inquiries to determine the source of his distressing behavior; whether I've been afraid to start a conversation with him about the matter at hand because might prove "difficult" or who reveal a weakness in my own character or error in my own judgment; whether I'm taking something personally that's not directed at me; whether I'm nursing a grudge long after he's forgotten the event that cause if; and, whether there's a cry for help beneath his accusation.

    I have friends in 12-step programs who tell me that "the program's" recommended practice is to keep their own side of the street clean and leave the other guy's faults to himself.  They quote me chapter and verse from their "Big Book":

     Putting out of our minds the wrongs others had done, we resolutely looked for our own mistakes. Where had we been selfish, dis­ honest, self-seeking and frightened? Though a situa­tion had not been entirely our fault, we tried to disregard the other person involved entirely. Where were we to blame? The inventory was ours, not the other man’s. When we saw our faults we listed them. We placed them before us in black and white. We admitted our wrongs honestly and were willing to set these matters straight.

    What then do we contribute to the creation of an asshole?  First, we judge the behavior of others tending to believe - without sufficient evidence --  that their injury-causing behavior was meant to harm us.  Opposing counsel filed his ex parte application at 5:00 on the evening before Thanksgiving for the purpose of making our lives miserable.  Second, we see patterns where none exist.  The practice group leader's decision to take associate X to a client meeting following associate X's assignment to a high profile case, means that associate X is being groomed for partner while you are being marginalized.  Finally, we believe our own B.S., which prevents us from accurately assessing the true situation so that we can deal with it effectively.   

    And that's what I mean when I say an "asshole" is not a person but a behavior and not one person but two.


    1/  That we do this even with animals whose minds we can't possibly know was brought into sharp relief this week as pundits pondered whether a killer whale "meant" to kill his trainer or was only "playing" with her.

    2/  The social scientists have recently discovered that we actually feel more physical pain when we believe has intentionally struck us than accidentally caused us harm.

    Open Source Negotiation of Public Works

    You might recall an earlier post in which I reported the (both expected and astonishing) results of an open source project in which researchers "opened up a set of 166 scientific problems from the research laboratories of twenty-six firms to over 80,000 independent scientists," resulting in the resolution of one-third of the problems that the research labs had been unable to solve without assistance.  See Collaboration Creates Better Science, with a link to the Harvard Working Knowledge article reporting the research.

    This morning, thanks to google alerts (all praise google) I found this article about a public dispute over the demolition of a Dallas church that may or may not be entitled to historical monument protection - Judge Orders Mediation in Church Demolition Case.
    Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for NMC_21DEMOLITION_6081493[1] (Small).jpg

     A Dallas judge on Friday ordered the Dallas school district and the Old Oak Cliff Conservation League to mediation in their dispute over the proposed demolition of the former Oak Cliff Christian Church building.

    The DISD wants to raze the vacant building at 300 E. 10th St. to make way for a new Adamson High School. The league wants to save the 96-year-old structure and is asking a court to block the demolition at least until a review of potential alternatives.

    To support his case for saving the church, league attorney John McCall Jr. on Friday projected two pictures of the church for courtroom viewing.

    Before ordering mediation, state District Judge Martin Hoffman asked whether a compromise could be reached on the "beautiful old building. ... Is there a way to include this in DISD's plans?"

    After conferring briefly with school district representative Lee Simpson, attorney Robert E. Luna told the judge: "The information I have is the building has to be torn down."

    And when the judge asked about mediation, Luna again heard from Simpson before replying: "There's nothing here to mediate."

    What intrigues me here is not so much the Court's order to mediate or one party's belief that mediation would be a waste of time.  What draws my attention are the comments to the story, many of which appear to be well-informed and to contain useful information and reasonable differences of opinion on the either/or choice as well as pointers in the direction of an interest-based resolution.  

    Some issues, as mediators often hear, are simply not open to compromise.  Courts, the media and the public, however, continue to associate negotiated and mediated resolutions as necessarily requiring compromise.  Though every person interested in negotiation in the English speaking world has heard the story of the two girls and the single orange so many times that it has become tiresome, I remind my readers once again that when you ask a sufficient number of diagnostic questions underlying supposedly unyielding principles, you find the true needs, interests, desires, and fears that give rise to "principles that cannot be compromised."  Once you do that - ascertain the source of people's principles - you can often satisfy all parties without requiring any of them to compromise.

    If you're among the handful of people unacquainted with the Getting to Yes orange-splitting story, it goes like this:  two girls each want the single orange in the fruit bowl and petition mom for their "right" to have it.  Though mom might make a "fair" decision - splitting the orange in half; awarding the orange to the girl who didn't get her way the last time, etc. - she asks a "diagnostic question" to determine whether both girls' interests could be satisfied at the same time.

    Sure enough, one girl wants the orange skin for "zest" to make her cake and the other wants to eat the fruit inside. No need for either to compromise.

    In the Dallas public debate, the Court - an open public forum - serves its most cherished role of adjudicating disputes in the presence of anyone who wishes to attend (and can fit inside).  Cameras have enlarged the potential audience for court proceedings and, of course, the working press reports on its day-to-day operations.  Mediation, on the other hand, is conducted in secrecy, a process that is at odds with public decision making in a democracy.


    Here we see the extra value added to public decision-making by Internet 2.0 (the public conversation).  Anyone with an interest can leave their thoughts on the newspaper's blog, creating the potential for the same type of super-charged "open source" solutions that solved the scientific problems this post opened with.

    You own thoughts? particularly about mediated resolutions to public problems.

    Women, Negotiation and the Persistent Wage Gap

    Thanks to Ed. at Blawg Review for passing along this (somewhat rambling but well worth watching) lecture at Stanford University by  Deborah Kolb, the Deloitte Ellen Gabriel Professor for Women and Leadership at the Simmons College School of Management.  Hat tip to Guy Kawasaki's Holy Kaw! where Ed. picked it up.

    Kolb appears to be saying that the research on "women don't ask" is somewhat skewed because it generally concerns distributive (single issue) negotiations; doesn't control for anything other than gender; and, gives experimental subjects "asks" that are not representative of real world negotiations.

    The lecture also covers "gendered" work; organizational obstacles to women's commercial success; women's exclusion from rainmaking networks; the motherhood penalty; and, work's relationship to personal life. 

    Kolb discusses the issues that must be addressed by the researchers before they can provide genuinely useful negotiation guidance to help women begin to close the wage gap in business and the professions.

    Kolb touches on negotiating work-place flexibility - whether it is harmful to those who seek it and how Deloitte's Women's Initiative has shown that customized careers can benefit both genders and the organizations in which they work.

    In a recent article at Women's Media - Listening to Women:  New Perspectives on Negotiation - Kolb and co-author Judith Williams have the following negotiation advice for women (which is also excellent advice for men)


      • Take stock of your value. 
        People negotiate because they need something from you. Being clear about the value you bring empowers you in a negotiation.

      • Make your value visible. 
        When value disappears, so do influence and bargaining power. The other person must be clear about the benefits to them from negotiating and the consequences of failing to do so.

      • Anticipate challenges. 
        An effective advocate must be ready to move in the shadow negotiation not simply to promote her interests, but also to block any attempt to undermine her credibility. Once possible objections have been identified, they can be countered.

      • Appreciate the other's situation. 
        Consider five good reasons the other party might use to justify his or her stand and create opportunities to talk about them.

      • Make it easy for the other person to say yes. 
        Listen carefully for his or her ideas. Connect those ideas to yours and build on them to create agreements that meet both your needs.

      • Pay attention to the other party’s image. 
        Image is a concern for everyone. How negotiators look to themselves and to others who matter to them often counts as much as the particulars of an agreement.



    Motion to Compel Lunch: Granted


    Thanks to Roger Wood at the Association Law and Other Musings Blog for passing along the Order for Lunch issued by the Maricopa County Superior Court (.pdf) excerpted below.  Roger generously shared this truly glorious Order (and supporting opinion that you can read in the .pdf) over at Construction Law Musings today in response to my Guest Post there ("How to Get Sued"). 

    Thanks Roger!  This didn't just make my day; it made my year!


     Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Acceptance of Lunch Invitation

    The Court has rarely seen a motion with more merit. The motion will be granted.

    The Court has searched in vain in the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure and cases, as well as the leading treatises on federal and Arizona procedure, to find specific support for Plaintiff’s motion. Finding none, the Court concludes that motions of this type are so clearly within the inherent powers of the Court and have been so routinely granted that they are non-controversial and require no precedential support.

    The writers support the concept. Conversation has been called “the socializing instrument par excellence” (Jose Ortega y Gasset, Invertebrate Spain) and “one of the greatest pleasures in life” (Somerset Maugham, The Moon and Sixpence). John Dryden referred to“Sweet discourse, the banquet of the mind” (The Flower and the Leaf).

    Plaintiff’s counsel extended a lunch invitation to Defendant’s counsel “to have a discussion regarding discovery and other matters.” Plaintiff’s counsel offered to “pay for lunch.”  Defendant’s counsel failed to respond until the motion was filed.

    Defendant’s counsel distrusts Plaintiff’s counsel’s motives and fears that Plaintiff’s counsel’s purpose is to persuade Defendant’s counsel of the lack of merit in the defense case.

    The Court has no doubt of Defendant’s counsel’s ability to withstand Plaintiff’s counsel’s blandishments and to respond sally for sally and barb for barb. Defendant’s counsel now makes what may be an illusory acceptance of Plaintiff’s counsel’s invitation by saying, “We would love to have lunch at Ruth’s Chris with/on . . .” Plaintiff’s counsel. 1
    1 Everyone knows that Ruth’s Chris, while open for dinner, is not open for lunch. This   is a matter of which the Court may take judicial notice.

    Read on by clicking on the .pdf above.

    And how could I resist adding the "will you go to lunch!" scene from David Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross.

    Negotiating Fallacy: Diane Levin's Brilliant Fallacious Arguments Posts

    If you're following this blog but not Diane Levin's Blog The Mediation Channel, I have good news for you.  Diane is an extremely focused, disciplined and lively writer.  She's also one of the brightest and most canny negotiators, mediators and negotiation trainers I know.

    Diane describes her series, Fallacious Argument of the Month, as follows:

    With the goal of promoting clearheaded and reasoned debate and improving discourse, each month I skewer a different fallacy.

    Before giving you entree to this excellent series, let me first note that these arguments do not justify any movement in your negotiation position.  Remember - you need a new number and a new reason to counter that new number.  If your mediator or negotiating partner expects you to give up something, he'd better have a darn good reason for you to do so.  If you're a lawyer representing a party, you can feel your client figuratively or literally tugging on your sleeve when you offer more or agree to accept less in the absence of a justification that makes business sense.

    The Appeal to Authority

    Argumentum ad Hominem (this one is so irritating it can create impasse where none previously existed)

    The Red Herring

    Confusing Cause and Effect

    The Misleading Ellipsis (to which I add this caution ~~> the quickest path from respected advocate to deceitful scoundrel is the misleading ellipsis - Judge, Arbitrator, Mediator and Opponent will all distrust your bona fides from that date forward; if you can't think of a better argument, fall on your sword on this issue and create a better one just over the next hill).

    The False Analogy

    The Straw Man

    Diane adds one new fallacious argument every month.  I'll endeavor to keep up with her.  But more reliably, get her RSS feed, add it to your google reader and never again be without the wisdom of this brilliant mediator and negotiation trainer and consultant.  That's her smiling face at top.  Visit her often! at The Mediation Channel.


    "Man" Up to Negotiate or Prevent Your Own Disputes at Sleeping Beauty's Castle

    Conflict is in the house.  The evil fairy surrounded the castle with deadly thorns.  The "good" fairy put everyone in the castle to sleep.  Will you be the valiant Prince in your own dispute story?  Or are you the prize?  The beautiful one who would prefer to remain unconscious rather than address the great battle between good and evil represented here?  Did you hire a lawyer to resolve your dispute for you?  Will he make it to the castle in time?  Or will he spend the bulk of his energy erecting more obstacles to prevent your adversary from reaching you.  By the time both champions reach the castle, will everyone be too bloodied and broke to rise from your bed and put your house back in order?

    Choose carefully and read the entire post at the Commercial ADR Blog:  The Other ADR:  Risk Management for the Cloud.

    We are a Bargaining, Haggling, Negotiating, Wheeling and Dealing Twitter World

    We bargain with toddlers, haggle with street vendors, negotiate legislation, make deals with car salesmen, craft golden parachutes for failed "Tonight Show" hosts, use friendship as a bargaining chip, cut deals with the bartender, negotiate the complexities of culture through story-telling, seek to raise our salaries during a recession, and, wheel and deal on rookie wage scales, all in a matter of hours as chronicled by twitter. Below.

    Search term: "negotiation"

    @mikemyatt: Why negotiation is a flawed business practice: http://bit.ly/F6SeA #Leadership -> specifically, lawyers kill trust

    @meatbeat i dont want an american car but my former salesman fren says they have up to a 25% bigger negotiation window over imports.

    @The_News_Herald Police union concessions might not be enough, city says: PANAMA CITY — A nearly yearlong negotiation process crept... http://bit.ly/5NAryW

    @JacksMomMarie 3 hours later the preschooler relentless negotiation of EVERY part of the day not as cute but still cool. Feel free 2 whisper a prayer tho

    Search term: "Negotiate"

    @gilscorner You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate. - Stephen Pollard, British journalist

    @chrisTalanian RT @TrackGals: WSJ.com - NBC, O'Brien Negotiate Exit http://on.wsj.com/7DVJK5

    @slainson RT @NEW_PLAY_BLOG Theatre, ritual, storytelling is *Essential* to culture around world, it's a way to negotiate the complexity of culture

    @BruceRecruiter RT @aoljobs: How to Negotiate a Better Employment Contract Than Conan O'Brien http://bit.ly/8ndMsw #jobs #resume

    Search term: Bargaining

    @preampcc a wrote a new blog post: Used Car Bargaining Tips http://bit.ly/7Om2b8

    @sydneydalton just did some really good shopping and bargaining on canal street. hahahaha.

    @naveenmurali Bargaining is just a game of egos.

    @brucedeboer Creative Denial, Anger, Bargaining, & Acceptance - http://www.permissiontosuck.com/denial-acceptance/

    @Congeniality08 @javierabrown I remember when "I'll be your best friend" was the most effective bargaining tactic. THAT was brilliant.

    @karaffaunel Tough bargaining still ahead at UN climate talks 88P0wR cop15 copenhagen !

    @ciensoong 5 phases of breakup .. Denial, anger, bargaining, sorrow, and acceptance .. Hmm

    @MattRichWarren RT @andysimms: http://bit.ly/77yM4s NFL and NFLPA Bargaining Sessions include proposals to change rookie wage scale for THIS season.

    @yoloneco810 Kankakee teachers go back to the bargaining table. http://r2u.at/LugWd

    @Aubreysomething A promise is not a bargaining chip or something you say just to shut the other person up. - You only say it when you really mean it.

    @thegipperreview RT @JimDeMint: My post on @RedState: Collective bargaining has hurt border patrol, TSA shouldn’t make same mistake http://bit.ly/8uniV9

    Search Term: Haggling

    @heathrrrr Sitting in a car dealership haggling over prices. What a way to celebrate a birthday.

    @travelworld101 Haggling a tradition in Guatemala - Daily Oklahoman: Guatemalans prepare for the opening of the outdoor textile ma... http://bit.ly/8jGX6S

    @BaybiiAyo09 #whyyouintheclub haggling with the bartender?

    @CarrollStandard Haggling Over Price - http://www.carrollstandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7763&Itemid=31

    @EricRobertson Interesting. My warm beverage cost $0.44 more today, despite any amounts of haggling.

    @nyaasu I'm all for haggling, I honestly don't mind lowering the price, but don't scam me out of it, geez. All I had to do was wait overnight! /o/

    @adirferreira @markitecht Street vendors have a hard time haggling in English ... so cool!

    @south_dakotaBNN Dakota Voice: Haggling Over Price: No matter how he tries to spin it, the legislation that Senator Nelson voted fo... http://bit.ly/89973Q

    @markitecht Epic street haggling by @adirferreira last night. Started at R$30, ended R$0 (plus a line of credit. no kidding.)

    Negotiate a Raise in this Economy? Maybe That's Not What You Really Want

    Check out reporter Kevin Fogarty's article How to Turn a Job Offer into a Raise over at The Ladders, an Executive Search company for the six-figure set.  Kevin recently interviewed me about negotiation strategies with a current employer when an eager new suitor comes a'calling.  I have to admit that I didn't suggest hooking up with Mr. Greener Grass before ascertaining whether you could negotiate your dream job just where you are.  An excerpt from the article below; full text at the link above.

    Before you ask a current employer or future employer to entertain a competitive offer, you should sit down and figure out what exactly you're hoping to gain or change through negotiations.

     What’s at the top of the list? “The answer to that, by the way, is never, ever, ever, ‘more money,’ ” Pynchon said. “More often it’s a change in the associates you work with, the kinds of projects you work on or your career path. When you make a list of things to negotiate, don’t go in thinking about the money; list the other things first.”

    Not only will your goal in the negotiation be one that’s more likely to make you happier and more effective in your job, a list of other potential changes gives your boss things to take off the table without stopping the conversation completely.

    “Every piece of research has shown that the more you give up in a negotiation, the happier your negotiating partner is,” Pynchon said. “So having some things you can give up without too much pain will do a lot to help maintain that relationship.”

    Be prepared for a conversation that may not go your way, however, and don’t invest so much of your ego in the numbers that you end up declining the offer out of spite.

    Finally, don’t forget that if you’re doing well in your current position, your security might be more valuable than an incremental increase in compensation. “It’s almost always the case that you can (perform) better in a current job than a new one, anyway, so most of the time it’s smarter not to take the other offer,” Pynchon said. “But it’s hard for overachievers to say ‘no’ to another $100,000.”

    Do Attorneys' "Get in the Way" of Mediator Assisted Negotiations?

    The not so secret opinion among mediators is that attorneys make settlement more difficult.  Just as lawyers are heard to say that "litigation would be great if it just weren't for the clients" (a "problem" only class action plaintiffs' lawyers have actually resolved), mediators  tend to say "mediation would great if it weren't for the lawyers."

    Esteeming the rule of law in America as I do (especially in the recent era of its greatest peril) I have never seen lawyers as a problem in facilitating settlement of the lawsuits they have been eating, drinking, sleeping and, dating for years longer than I've spent reading their briefs and engaging in some pre-mediation telephone discussions.  

    I can't say lawyers are a problem because:  (1) they're my job; and, (2) they're "my people" in the "tribal" sense.  A few bad apples aside, lawyers are among the hardest working, most ethical, creative, multi-talented professionals I know.  And they are pretty much solely responsible for fighting the battle, on every common weekday, to preserve the rule of law as a bulwark against tyranny on the right and anarchy on the left.

    It was therefore no surprise to see a recent Harvard Negotiation Journal article (thanks to Don Philbin of the Disputing Blog and his indispensable ADR Toolbox) that one group of academics has asked whether attorneys have a Negative Impact . . . on Mediation Outcomes.

    Let's start with this particularly widespread canard from the article:

    Attorneys may delay the settlement of a dispute through mediation for financial reasons. For example, the payment of professional fees on the basis of hours worked could motivate the attorney to delay the settlement of the dispute to increase the number of hours billed to the client  (citations omitted).  Such non financial reasons as a desire to build or preserve a reputation for “hardball negotiating” in highly publicized cases could also motivate an attorney to delay settlement of the dispute [which the authors don't mention often results in a far better outcome for the client].   In addition, attorneys’ (or their clients’) commitment to or belief in their case based on questions of justice or other principles [which are worth, in my opinion, greater attention that purely monetary outcomes] could also delay settlement until “defending the principle becomes too costly” (citation omitted). Finally, attorneys may wish to justify both their role and their fees with unnecessary interactions./1

    Are we mendacious, self-serving, parasites of the "justice system," feathering our own comfortable nests as we attempt to preserve the "outdated" notion that the justice system is capable of delivering justice? I don't believe so, but let's not get all anecdotal about these questions when we have cold, hard statistics within reach.  What were the results of this study on the way in which attorneys might "get in the way of" a successful mediation?

    Here's the bottom line assessment (please read the article yourself to draw your own conclusions).

    The empirical data we collected in this study indicate that the presence of an attorney in a mediation does not significantly affect the settlement rate, the time needed to reach an agreement, the perceived fairness of the process, the parties’ level of satisfaction with the agreement, or the parties’ level of trust that the agreement will be honored. These results indicate that attorneys have much less impact than is claimed by those mediators who do not welcome their involvement in the mediation process.

    Nevertheless, the results also demonstrate that the presence of an attorney does affect mediation outcomes in at least two ways: by reducing the parties’ level of satisfaction with the mediator’s performance and by reducing the level of reconciliation between parties.

    So the Myth Busters of this study conclude that attorneys:

    1. don't "significantly affect the settlement rate" /2
    2. don't significantly affect "the perceived fairness of the process";
    3. don't significantly affect "the parties' level of satisfaction with the agreement; and,
    4. don't significantly affect the "parties' level of trust that the agreement will be honored."

    This is the subjective viewpoint of the litigants, mind you, in a dynamic where the mediator often openly attributes the success of the mediation to the clients' attorney - an observation which is more deeply true than most mediators would care to admit with all their white horse hi-ho silver, magic bullet off-to the-rescue enthusiasm.

    What did litigants report to the authors of this article?  They indicated that attorneys adversely affected mediation outcomes in two ways:  (1)  they reduced the parties' "level of satisfaction with the mediator's performance"; and, (2) they "reduced the level of reconciliation between the parties."

    Of all of the purported effects of attorneys' presence at mediation - without whom, it must be noted, the parties would not likely be induced to sit down and mediate at all -- the only significant perceived difference is the failure of the mediation process to reconcile the parties - something in which the legal system has little to no interest.

    Please read the article for proposed solutions to the reconciliation issue.  As to the remainder of the study's findings, I have this to say:

    1. whenever two or more people are gathered together, the dynamics of the group more profoundly affect the outcome than do the contributions of any individual member of the group.  Our "reality," especially as it appears in a group setting, is "co-created."  See the New York Times must-read article on the Psychology of Terrorism and Retail Marketing at Google Books (the latter noting that because people live in a social world which is co-created in social interaction with others . . . . [they] can be thought of as both products and producers of the social world."  Id. at 218.)
    2. try as you may, you will never be able to untangle the threads that create the intricate tapestry of a settlement; every member contributes something invaluable without which the precise result could not possibly have been achieved. 
    3. who is therefore responsible for the good and who responsible for the purportedly bad results of mediation?  That's easy:  EVERYONE IS.

    That being the case, we are all responsible for our outcomes - whether our contribution is "negative," i.e., resisting settlement, for instance, or "positive," i.e., problem solving the reasons given by Mr. Negative that the case simply can't settle on terms acceptable to all.  Remember your University philosophy class? Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.  We need people willing to state the negative to problem solve it positively.  The relationships cause the outcome, not one member of a group unless that member is a tyrant with loyal troops at his command. 

    If you'll allow me a literary reference that justifies my own collegiate career and says far more eloquently than I ever could why we're all accountable, I first give you one of my favorite authors, Paul Auster (who you may remember as the screenwriter of the movie Smoke).

    The world can never be assumed to exist.  It comes into being only in the act of moving towards it.  Ese est percipii.  Nothing can be taken for granted:  we do not find  ourselves in the midst of an already established world, we do not, as if by preordained birthright, automatically take possession of our surroundings.  Each moment,each thing, must be earned, wrested away from the confusion of inert matter, by a steadiness of gaze, a purity of perception so intense that the effort, in itself, takes on the value of a religious act.  The slate has  been wiped clean. It is up to [us] to write [our] own book. Paul Auster, The Decisive Moment from The Art of Hunger.

    The second excerpt I will leave for your thoughtful consideration is by the greatest scholar of comparative religions to ever inhabit the planet - Joseph Campbell (skip the intro with the new age music).

    Schopenhauer, in his splendid essay called "On an Apparent Intention in the Fate of the Individual," points out that when you reach an advanced age and look back over your lifetime, it can seem to have had a consistent order and plan, as though composed by some novelist. Events that when they occurred had seemed accidental and of little moment turn out to have been indispensable factors in the composition of a consistent plot. So who composed that plot? Schopenhauer suggests that just as your dreams are composed by an aspect of yourself of which your consciousness is unaware, so, too, your whole life is composed by the will within you. And just as people whom you will have met apparently by mere chance became leading agents in the structuring of your life, so, too, will you have served unknowingly as an agent, giving meaning to the lives of others, The whole thing gears together like one big symphony, with everything unconsciously structuring everything else. And Schopenhauer concludes that it is as though our lives were the features of the one great dream of a single dreamer in which all the dream characters dream, too; so that everything links to everything else, moved by the one will to life which is the universal will in nature.

    It’s a magnificent idea – an idea that appears in India in the mythic image of the Net of Indra, which is a net of gems, where at every crossing of one thread over another there is a gem reflecting all the other reflective gems. Everything arises in mutual relation to everything else, so you can’t blame anybody for anything. It is even as though there were a single intention behind it all, which always makes some kind of sense, though none of us knows what the sense might be, or has lived the life that he quite intended.

    Joseph Campbell - The Power of Myth, with Bill Moyers, as quoted in Derek Parrott's Blog.

    Lawyers, mediators, clients, experts, consultants, legal assistants, and, yes, even your spouse with whom you consulted before today's mediation, every one of them is part of the "net of gems, where at every crossing of one thread over another there is a gem reflecting all the other reflective gems [so that] [e]verything arises in mutual relation to everything else, so you can't blame anybody for anything" and, by the  way, we can't credit credit nor bear all the responsibility for anything.  We are all capable.  We are all accountable.  And we all contribute something to the whole.

    So we can stop pretending to be better than we are now.  We can all put down the burden and shame of our own entirely human fallibility; the myth that we ever do anything without the contribution of others; and, the pretense that we don't behave as badly, or as well, as other people do.  We're part of the team.  We're in it together.  Isn't that good news for the New Year?

    And to give you a treat from having gotten this far, a scene that is all about seeing, from Paul Auster's Smoke.


    1/ I'd be interested, of course, in what the authors consider to be "unnecessary interactions."

    2/ This is a particularly interesting finding since mediators have also been found not to improve the settlement rate but only greater party satisfaction in several studies.


    Don't Leave Money on the Table or Pay Too Much for that Release this Year


    Don Philbin, the author of this must-read article (click on the image for the .pdf) on the reasons you walk away from negotiations fearing you've either left money on the table or paid too much for what you receive in exchange, is an attorney-mediator, negotiation consultant and trainer, and arbitrator. 

    Don has resolved disputes and crafted deals for more than 20 years as a commercial litigator, general counsel and president of communications and technology-related companies.  Don has mediated hundreds of matters in a wide variety of substantive areas and serves as an arbitrator on several panels. He is an adjunct professor at the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine Law School, Chair of the ABA Dispute Resolution Section’s Negotiation Committee, and a member of the ADR Section Council of the State Bar of Texas.

    Don is listed in The Best Lawyers in America (Dispute Resolution), The Best Lawyers in San Antonio, and the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers.

    Don's ADR Toolbox where this article can also be found is an indispensable resource for all attorneys negotiating the settlement of a lawsuit or a business deal (wait a minute!  the negotiation of a settlement is a business deal!)

    And, it's not inconsequential that Don is one of the nicest guys I know.  If you're going to spend a day or a week or a month with a mediator or an arbitrator, you deserve not only the brightest, most wise and best prepared arbitrator or mediator, you also deserve to have a little fun in the process because . . . you know . . . the money simply isn't worth the unhappiness that comes when dealing with . . . . the other sort too often.

    Happy new year (dispute) resolutions!

    New Year's Negotiation Resolution: Dialogue with the Public Conversations Project

    Click on the image for the link to the Public Conversations Project and join me in my New Year's resolutions to focus on our similarities and common interests rather than on our differences and conflicting goals; find common ground; share the experiences from which our opinions dervice (our stories); set aside argument in favor of dialogue; remember that each one of us is struggling with some great burden despite outward appearances; and, that squeezing the last nickel or concession out of our bargaining partner fails to recognize that we are all in this together.

    For the many spiritual holidays being celebrated at year's end, I offer my own favorite prayer from my own religious upbringing, the Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi:

    Lord, make me an instrument of your peace,
    Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
    where there is injury, pardon;
    where there is doubt, faith;
    where there is despair, hope;
    where there is darkness, light;
    where there is sadness, joy;

    O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
    to be understood as to understand;
    to be loved as to love.

    For it is in giving that we receive;
    it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
    and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

    Happy Hannukah, Kwanza, Festivus, Solstice, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!



    What to do when your negotiation partner is a ghost

    Some settlement negotiators chronically defer to the ghost negotiator "back in the home office."  If your mediator has been unable to make sure the party with full settlement authority is present or if your mediator surprises you by actually bringing the parties near settlement when you thought you were there just to get your mediation dance card punched, you might want to follow this advice.

    Explore the extent of your counterpart’s authority early in the negotiation.  Then, to the extent you can, match it.  Generally, it’s disadvantageous to have more authority than your counterpart because you can concede – and often do - while your counterpart can’t.

    Thanks to Marty Latz, founder of Latz Negotiation Institute, a national negotiation training and consulting company, and ExpertNegotiator, a Web-based software company that helps managers and negotiators more effectively negotiate and implement best practices based on the experts' proven research.

    Music to a Mediator's Ears: Construction Mediation Works!

    Yes, we do appreciate being appreciated so thanks to my great good virtual pal and construction attorney Christopher Hill for this post, Personal Thoughts on Construction Mediation.  Not only could I not have said it better myself, I've never been able to say it this succinctly.

    Why does mediation work?  For several reasons that I can think of [including] the flexibility to make a business decision.  Commercial contractors and subcontractors are in a business, and they should be making business decisions.  While one such decision can be to go to litigation; litigation is not always the best solution from a financial, or stress perspective.  Construction professionals, with the assistance of construction attorneys, can come up with a creative way to deal with a problem and solve it.

    Read full post at the link above.


    What's Gratitude Got to Do with It?

    (may I offer you a second helping of Jimmy Choo shoes with your turkey?)

    Before sharing Brian Solis' succinct and brilliant post the Benevolent Acts of Reciprocity and Recognition and Highlights from the Research Project on Gratitude and Thankfulness (excerpt below) I want to once again make a few remarks about what we all seek to achieve with rights and remedies (particularly in the post-scarcity society in which we too often forget we live):

    1. we want rights because we are genetically programmed and culturally conditioned to be fair (remember the Capuchin monkeys who, trained to work for "money" staged a sit-down strike when others doing the same work were compensated at five times the rate as their under compensated fellows);
    2. rights are meant to guarantee us equal treatment in the distribution of public benefits and resources; and, equal access to public and private accommodations;
    3. remedies are meant to restore private and public resources to those who have been deprived of them because some one; group; organization or governmental entity has broken one or more rules by which we have chosen to govern ourselves; and,
    4. money is a means to an end, not an end in itself and each of us desires money for the same reasons - control of our own destiny (power; self expression); access to the benefits of the social contract (1. Freedom of speech and expression 2. Freedom of religion 3. Freedom from want 4. Freedom from fear); security against an uncertain future (access to medical services and a mimimal standard of living if we become unable to care for ourselves); meaningful occupation; the opportunity to be of unique service to our fellows; love; and, joy (monetary sub-goals such as a pair of Jimmy Choo shoes are also simply a [misguided] means to achieve these ends).

    I have been taken to task for being "touchy-feely" or "new age" or of insufficient value to my "market" because I say these things repeatedly in public.  My "market," I'm told, would rather be right than happy; would rather someone lose so that they can win; and, believe the only thing anyone wants is money.

    I don't believe it and I am committed to holding this space as a place-marker for my "people" who are suffering.  Which people are those?  Litigators. 

    The challenge of this and every year:  How do we even begin to introduce the concept that we can more easily, efficiently and effectively satisfy the true interests of our fellows-in-the-social-condition than we can satisfy one individual's demand for preeminence over another? 

    On our least divisive, most-inclusive and thoroughly secular holiday of Thanksgiving, we can begin to alleviate the suffering caused by zero-sum games with gratitude -- the benefits of which are being studied by a team of researchers at my legal alma mater, U.C. Davis.

    Gratitude is the “forgotten factor” in happiness research. We are engaged in a long-term research project designed to create and disseminate a large body of novel scientific data on the nature of gratitude, its causes, and its potential consequences for human health and well-being. Scientists are latecomers to the concept of gratitude. Religions and philosophies have long embraced gratitude as an indispensable manifestation of virtue, and an integral component of health, wholeness, and well-being. Through conducting highly focused, cutting-edge studies on the nature of gratitude, its causes, and its consequences, we hope to shed important scientific light on this important concept. This document is intended to provide a brief, introductory overview of the major findings to date of the research project. For further information, please contact Robert Emmons. This project is supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation.

    We are engaged in two main lines of inquiry at the present time: (1) developing methods to cultivate gratitude in daily life and assess gratitude’s effect on well-being, and (2) developing a measure to reliably assess individual differences in dispositional gratefulness.

    Gratitude Interventions and Psychological and Physical Well-Being

    * In an experimental comparison, those who kept gratitude journals on a weekly basis exercised more regularly, reported fewer physical symptoms, felt better about their lives as a whole, and were more optimistic about the upcoming week compared to those who recorded hassles or neutral life events (Emmons & McCullough, 2003).

    * A related benefit was observed in the realm of personal goal attainment: Participants who kept gratitude lists were more likely to have made progress toward important personal goals (academic, interpersonal and health-based) over a two-month period compared to subjects in the other experimental conditions.

    * A daily gratitude intervention (self-guided exercises) with young adults resulted in higher reported levels of the positive states of alertness, enthusiasm, determination, attentiveness and energy compared to a focus on hassles or a downward social comparison (ways in which participants thought they were better off than others). There was no difference in levels of unpleasant emotions reported in the three groups.

    * Participants in the daily gratitude condition were more likely to report having helped someone with a personal problem or having offered emotional support to another, relative to the hassles or social comparison condition.

    * In a sample of adults with neuromuscular disease, a 21-day gratitude intervention resulted in greater amounts of high energy positive moods, a greater sense of feeling connected to others, more optimistic ratings of one’s life, and better sleep duration and sleep quality, relative to a control group.

    * Children who practice grateful thinking have more positive attitudes toward school and their families (Froh, Sefick, & Emmons, 2008).

    There's more at the link!

    Happy Thanksgiving.

    Legal vs. Mediation Narratives and Why They Matter

    I taught legal process in the context of mediating litigated cases yesterday at the American Institute of Mediation.  I volunteered my time for the singular opportunity to be a co-presenter with the brilliant Doug Noll (buy and read everything he's written; follow him on Twitter; subscribe to the RSS feed of his blog; and, listen to his podcasts and radio show) and the equally brilliant and most successful "non-lawyer" litigated case mediator in the English-speaking world, Lee Jay Berman of the American Institute of Mediation (follow him; take his Institute's courses; and, listen to whatever he has to say because your negotiation and mediation practice will improve 100% immediately).

    Because Doug, Lee Jay and I spent the entire day yesterday talking about legal rights and remedies as well as legal procedure in the context of negotiating the resolution of litigation, I was once again engaged in the soul-searching that always accompanies situations challenging my loyalty to the adversarial/rights-remedies business and stimulates my enthusiasm for the interest-based, consensus building, collaborative, problem solving negotiated resolution business. 

    I was looking for something else this morning when I once again stumbled over one of my favorite articles on this issue, Client Counseling, Mediation and Alternative Narratives of Dispute Resolution (Spring 2004) 10 Clinical L. Rev 833 by Law Professor Robert Rubinson.

    Before giving you an excerpt that should tempt you to download the article and put it on your nightstand, I want to say this: I work on the razor's edge of my lifetime career-investment in the adversarial system, on the one hand, and my new'ish passion for collaborative, interest-based negotiated resolutions to disputes, on the other.  I spent 25 years as a warrior who rightfully took advantage of my adversary's weaknesses.  I was not a problem solver.  I was engaged in a fight to the death on a pre-determined field with rules in which I believed for causes I knew to be just.  As a result, I approach all alternatives to the adversarial process with a litigator's skepticism, wariness and world-wearyness.  There is no kumbya in me.  It is only my intellectual curiosity that survived the beating my heart took from the world-weary, cynical, grizzled old defense attorneys who taught me how to practice law (as adversaries testing my mettle) in Sacramento thirty years ago.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.

    The engine that drives litigation's morality tale is that conflict resolution is a contest between parties, one of whom necessarily represents good and the other necessarily represents bad.  As a result, litigation seeks to designate who has committed moral transgressions by breaching legal norms (or, from the perspective of the defendant, who wrongfully accuses others of having done so).

    The Story of Mediation subverts these norms by transforming this familiar morality tale into a story of collaboration. This subversion begins through how mediation conceives of conflict itself. Implicit in the Story of Litigation is that conflict represents a breach of the norms of conduct, thereby ripping the social fabric in some way large or small. In contrast, in mediation, conflict is a norm of conduct, a necessary byproduct of humans having distinct experiences and personalities and needs. Conflict is thus not necessarily a disruption of the moral order, and, indeed, can sometimes be productive.

    Mediation's normalization of conflict, however, cannot eliminate what appears to be a deep-seated human need to understand experience in terms of struggles and strivings. Humans have great difficulty perceiving events as generated by causes beyond our control - what Amsterdam and Bruner evocatively describe as an inability to see events as "One Damn Thing After Another." We must instead "shape them into strivings and adversities, contests and rewards, vanquishings and setbacks."

    The meta-narrative of litigation maps these "strivings" and "vanquishings" onto the struggle of one party against another and enlists the aid of the court to vindicate justice on behalf of the wronged party. In contrast, the meta-narrative of mediation seeks to map these "strivings" and "vanquishings" onto a collaborative struggle to resolve conflict. This narrative casts all participants as players in a process - collaboration - that is focused on reaching the common goal of successfully resolving or transforming a dispute. This story has moral entailments because collaboration is accepted as a social and moral good. Unlike litigation, however, this story does not generate a binary moral universe that divides the good from the bad, but, rather, a universe that values collaborative striving to achieve common ground and resolution.

    This story places mediators in a role that is very different from the role played by decision-makers in litigation. Rather than being heroes of moral vindication to whom wronged parties appeal for justice, mediators promote and model collaborative striving to overcome conflict. This plays out in many accepted techniques in mediation. Mediators, for example, often seek "commitment" from participants to the process of mediation, although mediators are careful not to extend this commitment to a commitment to agree. This commitment to process is a proxy for a commitment to collaborate to seek to resolve conflict, thus incrementally moving participants away from contested litigation and towards collaborative problem solving. Similarly, mediators often "reframe" participants' statements in order to emphasize "common ground." This is also an effort to move parties away from a morally charged contest and into collaboration. Finally, mediators encourage and model collaboration through a positive message of optimism and progress towards resolution, even when (or, perhaps, especially when) impasse appears likely.

    Moreover, mediation approaches the narrative movement from Efforts to Restoration of Steady State in a very different way than litigation. Whether the Steady State is Restored or Transformed constitutes what I have earlier characterized as a "fork in the road" in the Austere Definition of Narrative. The very language through which litigants seek redress of grievances - to "be made whole," "to pay your debt society" (with its implication that payment of the debt would return the ledger to balance), even the word "remedy" - implies Restoration. In contrast, mediation tends to reject Restoration as a state to which the parties (and society as whole) should or even can return. Rather, mediation seeks Transformation on the part of all disputants so that conflict is resolved.  It does so by embracing the notion that perceptions of the world (including perceptions of the actions of others) are unstable, thus enabling parties to appreciate alternative perspectives as a way to promote resolution of conflict. Mediation, therefore, does embody a plot that adheres to the narrative movement described by the Austere Definition, albeit in ways that are utterly alien to the morality tale of the story of litigation. The story of mediation can be characterized as follows:

    Steady State: Whatever Each Party Views as Pre-Conflict

    Trouble: Whatever Each Party Views as Constituting Conflict

    Efforts: Collaborative Striving To Overcome Conflict as Modeled and Promoted by Mediator

    Transformation of Steady State: A New Relationship Among Parties

    Coda: Moving On

                               *                          *                        *

    Continue Reading

    Trial Lawyers' Dilemma Similar to Mediation Advocates' Dilemma: Making the Initial Demand

    Check out Trial Lawyer's Dilemma:  How Much to Ask for at the Palm Coast Injury Law Blog this week.

    As lawyer Phil Chanfrau observes:

    Knowing how much to ask the Jury for  is a delicate, tough and lonely decision for any plaintiff's trial lawyer, no matter how skilled,  and experienced he is.   If he asks for too little, the jury award will not be adequate.  Too much and the jury will be insulted.  The venue should and must be considered too.  In a place like Flagler county, jurors may feel a lawyer is asking for too much, whereas under the same facts in south Florida, another jury may easily feel at home with a large damage award.

    Remembering that the advantage in negotiation is always to the party who makes the first reasonably aggressive first offer the decision about how much to ask the jury for should be similar to how large the initial demand in a mediation proceeding should be.  Too much and the mediator not only spends the next hour or so defusing hot tempers on the other side, you lose most if not all of the advantage of anchoring.  For a discussion of anchoring, click here, here and here.

    Negotiating Enforceable Employment Arbitration Agreements

    Even so luminary a firm as O'Melveny has been smacked down by the courts (here, the Ninth Circuit) when trying to enforce employee arbitration agreements.  California lawyers would therefore be well-advised to read the opinion covered at the California Employment Law Report this week:  Arbitration Agreement Upheld Despite Employee's Argument It Was Not Mutual And Adhesive

    Here's the clause:

    I hereby agree to submit to binding arbitration all disputes and claims arising out of the submission of this application. I further agree, in the event that I am hired by the company, that all disputes that cannot be resolved by informal internal resolution which might arise out of my employment with the company, whether during or after that employment, will be submitted to binding arbitration. I agree that such arbitration shall be conducted under the rules of the American Arbitration Association. This application contains the entire agreement between the parties with regard to dispute resolution, and there are no other agreements as to dispute resolution, either oral or written.

    This decision is made more interesting by the recent Parada decision (.pdf) (covered here and here) where the drafter's failure to attach the JAMS arbitration rules cited in the agreement was one of the reasons the Court concluded the arbitration clause was substantively unconscionable.  I think it's safe to say at this point in the development of California law on these issues that it's not malpractice for an attorney to fail to draft an enforceable arbitration clause.  But as the opinions multiply, you can be sure some employer will be looking around for someone to name its legal counsel as the source of his discontent, blame its law firm for having to bear the expense of litigation, and claim damages as a result. 

    The best protection for drafters of arbitration clauses (particularly in California where the Courts remain suspicious of adhesion arbitration contracts) is to be familiar with all the case law on the topic in the last five years; to avoid any provision the Courts have used to tip the "sliding scale" in favor of non-enforcement and include those provisions which favorably incline the courts to enforce the clauses.  

    Mediators and Industry Knowledge, Game Theory and Understanding Conflict

    Check out the range of opinions among litigators' clients on this still-hot topic in mediation circles over at the Business Conflict Blog (quickly becoming one of the most indispensable commercial mediation blogs on the web):  Should Mediators Be Expert in the Field of the Dispute?  Excerpt below.

    Patrick Deane of Nestlé is senior counsel to the largest food company in the world, and the disputes he runs into involve distributors, retailers, suppliers and consumers in every part of the globe.  His ideal mediator combines logic and intuition; a concern for detail; and the knack of an epatheic listener.  He noted that commercial disputes — even financial ones — are seldom dry, but instead involve personalities, risk of loss of face, and other human attributes just as much as more personal claims do.  The question of subject-matter expertise was of little importance to Deane, compared to these essential qualities in a mediator who must be expert in a process that, at heart, is aimed at cost effectiveness.  “A lack of industry expertise has never caused a failure of the mediation process.

    I must admit that when Tim Hughes (@vaconstruction) -- he of the Virginia Real Estate, Land Use and Construction Law blog and an avid ADR watcher -- tipped me off to this post, I read the question as asking whether mediators should be experts in the "field" of conflict - rather than in the industry in which the disputants are involved.

    Here's my opinion (as if you didn't already know).  As Colin Powell says, the most important knowledge to have in international negotiations is the other guy's decision cycle.  I imagine the great predictor, the political scientist and Hoover Institute Fellow  Bruce Bueno de Mesquitas would say something along the same lines (see TED lecture below).  See also the NYT piece, Can Game Theory Predict When Iran Will Get the Bomb?

    What is the "other guy's" decision cycle?  It is comprised of every interest he must satisfy and every person he is accountable to for the foreseeable (and probable unintended) consequences of that decision.  Personal injury attorneys turned mediators are well acquainted with the decision cycles of both Plaintiff and Defense counsel as well as with the interests, needs, and desires of injured Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and insurance adjusters and their supervisors on the other.  Employment attorneys turned mediators are also deeply knowledgeable about the decision cycles of counsel on both sides of the table (one usually specializing in employees and the other in employers) as well as with the interests, needs and desires of terminated, demoted, or harassed employees on the one hand and of employers - both large and small - who often feel as if the Plaintiff is little better than a highway robber.  Judges turned mediators are better acquainted than anyone else of the decision cycles of juries -- a jury verdict being the alternative to a negotiated resolution.

    (Chart from Cultivating Piece)

    You knew I'd come to my own "specialty" knowledge.  Some of it is industry specific -- insurance and  financial institutions, for instance, and the garment, manufacturing, health care, commercial real estate, construction, and technology industries.  Though my experience in these fields adds some value to my commercial mediation practice, what I'm most skilled at is knowing the decision cycles of commercial litigators and their business clients.  I understand, for instance, the clients' reporting relationships; the metrics against which their performance and that of their corporate superiors are measured; the impact of SEC reporting requirements in "bet the company" litigation; and, the effect settlements in nine or ten figures might have on upcoming plans for mergers or acquisitions. 

    I can read a financial statement. 

    At a minimum, I can ask the questions necessary to obtain the knowledge required to ascertain the interests that must be satisfied by both parties to transform the litigation into an opportunity to make a business deal.  And I know how to make the commercial clients happy with their attorneys' final resolution of the business problem burdened with the justice issue that brought the case into court in the first instance.

    I am also schooled in the "field" of conflict resolution.  I understand at depth the cognitive biases --  universal tendencies in the way we think -- that inhibit rational decision making.  I know how conflict escalates and, more importantly, how it can be deescalated.  I understand the role emotion plays in decision making (particularly the emotion most common among business litigation clients - anger);  the gentle (and not so gentle) art of persuasion and, perhaps most importantly, the optimal negotiation strategies and tactics for the business problem at hand.

    And, I know in the knuckles of my spine what keeps commercial litigators awake at night, worrying about the next strategic, tactical, legal or extra-legal move to make; how to explain to the client that the case has suddenly gone south; and, how to deliver that bad news to the client in a way he or she can hear it and successfully report it to the GC, the CEO, the Board of Directors or e ven the shareholders. 

    I know this sounds like a lot of boastful self-promotion (it is).  Please don't take my word for it.  Anyone charged with finding, retaining and hiring a mediator to assist the parties in resolving a piece of hard-fought, sophisticated, complex commercial litigation would do well to check with his or her peers on any mediator's boastful self-appraisals.

    This is what I recall of mediator-hunting, however.  I'd send out a list to my colleagues.  I'd invariably get back opinions that were all over the board.  He/she is great with clients but usually ends up splitting the baby in half.  He/she talks too much and listens too little.  He/she marginalized the client and made me look bad.  He/she charges $15,000 per day and is one of the go-to mediators for this type of case but I was unimpressed, as was the client.  This guy/gal can settle anything.  Brilliant.  Magical.  

    So what's a beleaguered litigator to do?  Ask people you respect both inside and outside your law firm.  Ask how the mediator handles the "process dimensions" of the mediation.  Does he/she simply carry numbers and rationales back and forth between separate caucus rooms.  Can she give bad news to both sides.  Can he go beyond positional, zero-sum bargaining and into interest-based negotiated resolutions?  Is the client happy with the result and with the process?  After you've done this basic research, call the mediator yourself and ask him/her about the way in which she/he might handle the mediation of the particular matter you need to have resolved.   You should not only have the best information possible in making your choice, you should get a fair amount of terrific free advice and external brain-storming along the way.

    I really just meant to cite the Business Conflict Blog and get back to revising The ABC's of Conflict Resolution - my second draft due on October 30.

    So what's my answer to the question whether the mediator should have industry knowledge?  That answer lies, as most legal problems do, in the gray zone.  Industry knowledge helps.  But every commercial litigator knows that we can learn any industry if we have a basic understanding of how commercial enterprises work.  That's what I know -- commercial litigation -- and it is the reason I don't mediate personal injury or employment disputes with anyone below the rank of senior executive.  I don't know the right questions to ask and I don't know -- at depth -- the parties' or counsel's decision cycles. 

    I can learn, but if you called me for a personal injury or employment mediator, I wouldn't recommend myself - I'd recommend someone like Janet Fields or Nikki Tolt at Judicate West (personal injury) or Deborah Rothman, Jay McCauley or Lisa Klerman at their own mediation shops (employment). 

    For commercial mediation, I'd recommend the usual suspects (including, of course, myself) and Jeff Kichaven, Eric Green, Jay and Deborah, Ralph Williams (at ADR Services, Inc.), George Calkins and Jerry Kurland at JAMS (complex construction litigation); Les Weinstein (IP, particularly as an arbitrator); Mike Young (Judicate West and Alston + Bird); and, John Leo Wagner (Judicate West). 

    I know I've left a lot of fine mediators out of this list but these are the ones who immediately spring to mind because I either have personal experience as a client or co-mediator or I have it on the authority of my husband, Stephen N. Goldberg, formerly at Heller and now at Dickstein Shapiro (author of the Catastrophic Insurance Coverage blog).

    Enough!  Off to the real brains at hand -- Bruce Bueno de Mesquita at TED.

    Blawg Review #234

    Sociologist Elise Boulding has said that we live in a “200 year present,” a “social space which reaches into the past and into the future” -- a space in which “we can move around directly in our own lives and indirectly by touching the lives of the young and old around us.” Miall, Ramsbotham and Woodhouse, Contemporary Conflict Resolution.

    What does the 200-year present have to do with conflict resolution week?  It reminds us that new forms never really completely replace the old ones.  We continue to employ every technique we've ever used to suppress, avoid, deny, resolve, transform, or transcend conflict, including force (violent and non-violent such as injunctions subject of a Trial Warrior Blog post this week); thievery (the Trade Secrets Blog); shaming (which Scott Greenfield does to bloggers "looking for fights and dumb as dirt" and which Volokh suggests we do to health insurers); bullying (solutions to which appear at the Citizen Media Law Project); torture (still with us at the Crim Prof Blog); cheating (Make Yourself Better with Their Secrets at Concretely Ambiguous) ingratiation (at the Law School Expert); persuasive argumentation; appeal to third party authority; bargaining; communication; and, problem solving (The Tao of Advice at the Business of Creativity). 

    Whichever dispute resolution mechanism you use, it should be much improved if you take up  juggling (as reported this week at Idealawg).

    Transformative conflict resolution of the type covered by New York City police officer, Jeff Thompson at Enjoy Mediation, requires accountability (by lawyers, for instance, to the principle of justice at Law21); recognition (at JD Bliss); apology, amends, reconciliation (at Opinio Juris); power with (negotiation and cooperation at the Ohio Family Law Blog) instead of power over (at the Election Law Blog); and, interests rather than rights (at the Gay Couples Law Blog).

    No brand of law-giver or enforcer has ever entirely left the scene.  Cops, negotiators, mediators (on the international scene at the Business Conflict Blog); conciliators, arbitrators, trial attorneys (marking tattoos as exhibits over at LawComix), corporate lawyers, legislators  (fomenting a Franken Amendment at the ADR Prof Blawg); judges (whether elected or appointed at Legally Unbound), and, juries (who might be biased at SCOTUS Blog). 

    And of course the gadflies (wolf protection lawsuits anyone? at  Point of Law). 

    Win, lose, settle, enjoin (at Charon QC) or simply give up (6 Ways We Gave Up Our Privacy at CSO Security and Risk).  We regulate crime and prescribe punishment (Polanski at Sentencing Law and Policy and The End of an Era at Defending People). 

    We wage war (at Prawfs Blog) and seek peace (at the Delaware Employment Law Blog) as conflict inevitably erupts over Obama's (embarrassing) peace prize (at Balkinization).

    And, lest we forget our primary purpose, we bend our efforts toward justice (which, according to BLT is not necessarily available to card-carrying members of the ACLU).

    My own personal 200-year present spans the life of my maternal grandparents who were nine years old in 1909, and that of my step-children’s children, who (assuming they procreate on a reasonable schedule) should be ninety-five'ish in 2109

    My grandfather, born in 1900, witnessed the birth of electricity, saw the first automobile roll off an assembly line [2] and stood awestruck in a cornfield as one of mankind’s first airplanes took flight. [3]  Although we've progressed from bi-planes to jets and rockets (some of which may someday be green) we still fly balloons of the type first launched in 1783 -- both Goodyear Blimps and the backyard variety, covered this week by Legal Blog Watch as Law and More

    asked here whether the shiny, flying, silver Jiffy Pop-looking craft tethered in the backyard of Richard Heene was an "attractive nuisance" under the law.

    Grandpa's first war was, well, the First and his second was the Second,[4]  as if there'd never been any wars before the Great One. By the time I was born, mid-century, we'd fought the war to end all wars twice and knew we'd never survive a third

    My imagined grandchildren, [6] born sometime between today and 2014, will not be strangers to any of my grandfather’s technologies. Despite the advent of compact fluorescent light bulbs, the early lives of my step-children's children will likely pass under the glow of the same incandescent lights that brightened granddad’s one-room school house. They will be transported to school in cars with internal combustion engines, learn the same alphabet from the same cardboard and paper books (as well as from the "e" variety) [7] and play many of the same games [8]  he did – hop scotch, jump rope and ring-around the rosy. 

    Change will etch itself into the lives of my grandchildren as surely as it did my own, my parents' and my grandparents'.  Hybrids will give way to fully electric (and perhaps hemp-powered) [9] vehicles (effective or defective) and though electricity will continue to be  generated by hydroelectric dams, wind farms and nuclear power plants, some new and unimaginable source of power will surely push back the nights of my grand children's children. [10]

    Law, politics, society and culture also exist in the 200-year present of conflict resolution.  [11] In my personal 200-year span, the law seems to have changed the most profoundly. Was it the law first and culture later?  Or do they weave our future together?

    The first U.S. woman lawyer, Myra Bradwell, was admitted to practice a mere ten years before my grandmother was born. Mrs. Bradwell’s legal career was the subject of one of the sorriest U.S. Supreme Court decisions ever handed down, in which the Court opined,

    The civil law as well as nature itself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman. Man is, or should be, woman’s protector and defender.  The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life. The constitution of the family organization, which is founded in the divine ordinance, as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and functions of womanhood. The harmony, not to say the identity, of interests and views which belong, or should belong, to the family institution is repugnant to the idea for a woman adopting a distinct and independent career from that of her husband … for these reasons I think that the laws of Illinois now complained of are not obnoxious to the charge of any abridging any of the privileges and immunities of cities of the United States.


    Another nineteen years would pass after Bradwell began her practice before she (and my nineteen year old grandmother) were guaranteed the right to vote. [13] And another 30 years would pass after my women's movement -- the Second Wave -- before we'd have our own  business magazine -   ForbesWoman (my part in it here).  And let us not forget that despite the 20th Century's great civil rights achievements, when America catches a cold, black America gets pneumonia.  See e.g. Problems All Around for Blacks in Big Law at Being a Black Lawyer.

    My grandparents', parents' and step-children's 20th Century was dominated by genocide [14] on a scale and a technological precision unimaginable to our earlier forebears.  Mid-century brought with it the threat of nuclear annihilation but also liberated millions of people enslaved by colonialism.  We cured polio in my own lifetime with both "dead" and "live" vaccines (neither of them counterfeit) - a singular moment in scientific history during which no one took ownership of the cure and no one tried to stop others from seeking another, a problem Patently O addressed this week in Reverse Payments.

    Whether god or satan, heaven or hell, war or peace "won" the twentieth century, the world's greatest peace-making body was created during it -- the United Nations.  And here in the U.S., the “living room war,” Viet Nam, coupled with the largest generation of adolescents ever to grace American society, ended the forcible induction of young men into the military[15]

    With the recent discovery of our earliest ancestor, Ardi, our biological and social lives exist in a 4.4 million year now. Our physical bodies “evolve” in the womb along the same lines as did our species and, once born, we carry with us our earliest organs. [16] Most critical of these to conflict escalation and avoidance is our “fight-flight” mechanism – the amygdala.[17] And the most pertinent biological agents to promote the collaborative resolution of conflict are our “mirror neurons” which

     provide a powerful biological foundation for the evolution of culture . . . absorb[ing] it directly, with each generation teaching the next by social sharing, imitation and observation.


    As “exquisitely social creatures,” our “survival depends on understanding the actions, intentions and emotions of others.” Id. That our misunderstandings and cognitive biases -- mentioned by Volokh on Paternalism and Michael Carbone on reactive devaluation at Mediation Strategies this week -- threaten our survival as a species is undeniable (cf. Lawyers Must Survive or Face Extinction at the Lawyerist)

    How we’ve manage to survive despite our tendency to misread one another’s actions, intentions and emotions, is often the subject of those who advise us how to choose and move juries -- here -- Anne Reed at Deliberations (explaining why "they" don't see things like "we" do here); and, the Jury Room (explaining why pain hurts more intensely when we believe it's been intentionally inflicted here). 

    The Most Effective Conflict Resolution Technology is the Oldest

    One of our true original gangsters, Al Capone, is reported to have said that “you can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone” and one of our greatest Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt said “speak softly and carry a big stick.”

    Capone and Roosevelt didn't know it, but they were talking about the most effective (and most ancient) form of conflict resolution – tit for tat. In 1980, political Scientist Robert Axelrod asked game theory experts to submit computer programs designed to prevail in a game that provided the highest reward to cooperating pairs -- the famous Prisoner's Dilemma. (See also Max Kennerly's excellent post on Game Theory and Medical Malpractice Settlements at the Philadelphia Litigation and Trial Blog).

    The winner of Axelrod's competition was a program named tit for tat.  Tit for tat was programmed to cooperate [19]  with its first encounter with any other programmed player.  It  rewarded cooperation with cooperation (just as networking will reward the savvy lawyer over at Chuck Newton's Ride the Third Wave) and punished non-cooperation with retaliation. Because Tit for Tat retaliated in the face of non-cooperation (just as a former employee did according to Hell Hath No Fury at Chicago Law Blogger) it was never repeatedly victimized. And because Tit for Tat “forgave” non-cooperators upon their return to cooperative game playing (as some believe Mr. Polanski should be forgiven over at the Marquette U. Law School Faculty Blog) it never got locked into mutually costly chains of mutual betrayal. [20]

    As Robert Wright, author of The Moral Animal explained, had Tit for Tat been tossed into the game with 50 steadfast non-cooperators, there would have been a 49-way tie for first place. But none of the players' programs failed to cooperate in at least some circumstances, leaving Tit for Tat the clear victor.  According to Wright, humans, like the programs in Axelrod's competition, are evolutionarily “designed” to cooperate under at least some circumstances. The engine and benefit of cooperation is present in our neurochemistry.  When scientists observed the brain activity of volunteers playing the Prisoner’s Dilemma game, for instance, they found that the participants' “reward circuits” were activated and their impulsive "me first" circuits inhibited when they cooperated. Cooperation, retaliation, forgiveness and a return to cooperation. Tit for Tat. 

    Laws and Lawyers

    First and most importantly, I suppose, are the social media signs that you're "tweeting" like a lawyer over at the Social Media Law Student Blog.  Why first or important?  Know thyself.  Everything else follows that.

    We don't "dis" lawyers here at the Negotiation Blog.  We simply remind ourselves that our primary purpose is the promotion of justice, with a stable societal order closely behind.  Most people don't understand, for instance, that Shakespeare's famous the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers was not an insult.  In King Henry IV, Act IV, Scene II, Shakespeare's sentiment was not his own, but that of a revolutionary who wished to destroy the social order.

    The historic "present" of laws and lawyers is in the thousands, not simply the hundreds, of years. Hammurabi (make of his choice for the memorialization of his laws what you will) was the sixth king of Babylon, remembered for creating -- in his own name (and likeness?) - the first written and systematic legal code. 

    These laws provided for a mix of physical punishment - 60 lashes with an ox hide whip - ‘measure for measure’ awards (still with us in the form of lethal injection as covered by The StandDown Texas Project) – eye for eye, bone fracture for bone fracture – and monetary compensation – 20 shekels for tooth injuries – (preserved by workplace injury awards such as those discussed at the Workers Compensation Blog) depended not only upon the type of injury, but the social classes involved in the loss, i.e., ‘measure for measure’ sanctions were specified for losses among the upper classes while monetary awards were required for losses caused to and by commoners (reminding us that disrespect still too often turns on social status or "outsider" classification as discussed at Balkinization this week).  [23] 

    For the wrongful killing of another, for instance, the victim’s kin were paid according to the social status of the deceased party. Thus the ‘man price’ for killing a peasant was 200 shillings and that for a nobleman 1200 shillings. Payments were not, however, tailored to the loss, but fixed according to types of affront, a distinction we continue to make when we punish intentional torts more severely than negligent ones.  [24]>

    Criminal law and civil, it all comes down to a process that is "due" (a topic covered in a blistering post about tea-partiers and other "protectors" of the Constitution at the Criminal Jurisdiction Law Blog) and a set of guidelines against which we can exercise some small degree of control over our own commercial and personal futures (like those subject of Delays Not "Party Time, Excellent" for Subcontractor at the Construction Contract Review).

    Lawyers, litigators and trial lawyers are too often demonized by the ADR community as if you could get someone to sit down to negotiate without first pointing the gun of litigation at their heads; I salute you (and myself, for that matter!) for bringing us all to the bargaining table.  See Steve Mehta's recent post at Mediation Matters, Factors When Peace Makes Sense for a note that touches upon the symbiotic relationship between litigation and mediation, litigators and mediators.

    I shouldn't cite single legal blogs twice, but I cannot resist this quote of Scott Greenfield's on another pundit's view of the future lawyers have in store for them, i.e., 

    shucking oysters for a living if we don't accept a future of lawyers being piece workers in factories, sending our work off to Bangalore in pdf files and complementing people on their choice of forms at Legal Zoom.

    Legal Rebels:  the Sky is Falling at Simple JusticeCharon QC also weighs in on the ABA Legal Rebels project here.


    Which came first? Public civil trials or private arbitrations? You’ll be surprised, I’ll wager, to hear that arbitration was one of the earliest forms of dispute resolution, practiced by the juris consults of the Roman Empire. Roman arbitration predates the adversarial system of common law by more than a thousand years. [25]

    Ah, the glory of Rome! The juris consulti were (like too many mediators) amateurs who dabbled in dispute resolution, raising the question whether they (and we) should be certified or regulated as Diane Levin asks at The Mediation Channel this week.  The Roman hobbyists gave legal opinions (responsa) to all comers (a practice known as publice respondere). They also served the needs of Roman judges and governors would routinely consult with advisory panels of jurisconsults before rendering decisions. Thus, the Romans – god bless them! - were the first to have a class of people who spent their days thinking about legal problems (an activity some readers will recall Ralph Nader calling "mental gymnastics in an iron cage").

    18th Century Dispute Resolution Technology:  The (Inevitably Polarizing) Adversarial System

    It was Buckminster Fuller who famously opined that the "significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."  If you keep this aphorism in mind for the remainder of this post, you'll likely have some extraordinarily innovative comments to make in the comment section below.

    As the Law Guru wiki reminds us, we can trace the adversarial system to the "medieval mode of trial by combat, in which some litigants were allowed a champion to represent them."  We owe our present day adversarialism, however, to the common law's use of the jury - the power of argumentation replacing the power of the sword.

    The Act abolishing the infamous Star Chamber in 1641 also granted every "freeman" the right to trial by "lawful judgment of his peers" or by the "law of the land" before the Crown could "take[] or imprison[]" him or "disseis[e] [him] of his freehold or liberties, or free customs."  Nor could he any longer be "outlawed or exciled or otherwise destroyed."  Nor could the King "pass upon him or condemn him." 

    English colonies like our own adopted the jury trial system and we, of course, enshrined that system in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments.  Whether this 17th century dispute resolution technology can be fine-tuned to keep abreast of 21st century dispute creation technology (particularly in the quickly moving area of intellectual property) remains one of the pressing questions of legal and ADR policy and practice, particularly in a week in which a Superior Court verbally punished the lawyers before it for filing The Most Oppressive Motion Ever Presented (see the Laconic Law Blog).  The motion? 

    Defendants['] . . . motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication, seeking adjudication of 44 issues, most of which were not proper subjects of adjudication.  Defendants’ separate statement was 196 pages long, setting forth hundreds of facts, many of them not material—as defendants’ own papers conceded.  And the moving papers concluded with a request for judicial notice of 174 pages.  All told, defendants’ moving papers were 1056 pages.

    Id. (and ouch!)  On a less Dickensian note (think Bleak House) take a look at the IP Maximizer's post on IP litigation not being smart source of revenue for inventors

    Mediator, author and activist, Ken Cloke, suggests that interest-based resolutions to conflict must replace power and rights based resolutions if we expect to create a future in which justice prevails.  As Ken wrote in Conflict Revolution:

    Approaching evil and injustice from an interest-based perspective means listening to the deeper truths that gave rise to them, extending compassion even to those who were responsible for evils or injustices, and seeking not merely to replace one evil or injustice with another, but to reduce their attractiveness by designing outcomes, processes, and relationships that encourage adversaries to work collaboratively to satisfy their interests.

    Evil and injustice can therefore be considered byproducts of reliance on power or rights, and failures or refusals to learn and evolve.

    All political systems generate chronic conflicts that reveal their internal weaknesses, external pressures, and demands for evolutionary change. Power- and rights-based systems are adversarial and unstable, and therefore avoid, deny, resist, and defend themselves against change. As a result, they suppress conflicts or treat them as purely interpersonal, leaving insiders less informed and able to adapt, and outsiders feeling they were treated unjustly and contemplating evil in response.

    As pressures to change increase, these systems must either adapt, or turn reactionary and take a punitive, retaliatory attitude toward those seeking to promote change, delaying their own evolution. Only interest-based systems are fully able to seek out their weaknesses, proactively evolve, transform conflicts into sources of learning, and celebrate those who brought them to their attention.

    These are the words I leave with the readers of Blawg Review #234 because they are the ones that informed my personal and professional transformation from a legal career based on rights and remedies to one based upon interests and consensus. 

    Whatever my own personal 200-year present was, is and will be, it is pointed in the direction of peace with justice, with an enormous and probably unwarranted optimism best expressed by the man after whom my law school was namedMartin Luther King, Jr.  - the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.

    Blawg Review has information about next week's host, and instructions how to get your blawg posts reviewed in upcoming issues. Next week's host, Counsel to Counsel, will devote its round-up of the week's best legal posts to the Great Recession.

    [1]             See the WSJ Law Blog’s post on the evolving law on gay marriage this week – Procreat[ion] Not Required.

    [2]             Alas, there will always be lemons over at the Texas Lemon Law Blog (save those repair invoices!)

    [3]             See Ruth Bader Ginsberg Hospitalized at the Volokh Conspiracy, reporting on Ginsberg’s fall from the seat of an airplane before take-off.

    [4]             See the Law History Blog on Brewer’s Why America Fights.

    [6]             Grandchildren who will not, I hope, have to deal with my Alzheimers, the perils of which are described at the Slutsky Elder Law and Estate Planning Blog.

    [7]             Though, of course, e-books will be read side-by-side with hard copy as paper and cardboard eventually goes the way of Colonial era hornbooks. See Downloadable e-Books Change the Face of Brick and Mortar Libraries at the Law Librarian Blog.

    [8]              Those games will, of course, exist side by side the video variety, many of which are recommended as Tools for Special Needs Students and Educators at the Adjunct Law Prof Blog this week.

    [9]               See Hemp and Audacity at the U.S. Ag and Food Law Policy Blog.

    [12]             Alas there’s still a gender gap as described this week at Ms. JD.

    [13]             Voting rights are still a matter of concern today, of course. See Judge Says Virginia Violated Rights of Overseas Voters at the Blog of Legal Times.

    [14]             See Rachel Anderson’s Law Blog on the scope of immunity for foreign officials that Anderson believes may have important implications for Plaintiffs seeking recompense for genocide.

    [15]             One generation wants out and the other wants in. See Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Teach at Sexual Orientation and the Law Blog.

    [16]             Earlier scientific theory posited that each human embryo (see Embryo Mix-Up at the Proud Parenting Blog) passes through a progression of abbreviated stages that resemble the main evolutionary stages of its ancestors, i.e., that the fertilized egg starts as a single cell (just like our first living evolutionary ancestor); as the egg repeatedly divides it develops into an embryo with a segmented arrangement (the “worm” stage); these segments develop into vertebrae, muscles and something that sort of looks like gills (the “fish” stage); limb buds develop with paddle-like hands and feet, and there appears to be a “tail” (the “amphibian” stage); and, by the eighth week of development, most organs are nearly complete, the limbs develop fingers and toes, and the “tail” disappears (the human stage). It turns out that this one-to-one correlation was too simplistic, but it remains safe to say that our biological development still passes through several stages that “recapitulate” the evolution of our species.

    [17]          The amygdala is a region of the brain that permits the formation and storage of memories associated with emotional events. It permits us to “read” the emotional responses of our fellows and is thought to facilitated our ability to form relationships and live and work in groups. It is also the source of our “fight or flight” response to danger.

    [18] In Cells that Read Minds, New York Times Science writer Sandra Blakeslee explained:

    Studies show that some mirror neurons fire when a person reaches for a glass or watches someone else reach for a glass; others fire when the person puts the glass down and still others fire when the person reaches for a toothbrush and so on. They respond when someone kicks a ball, sees a ball being kicked, hears a ball being kicked and says or hears the word "kick."

     “When you see me perform an action - such as picking up a baseball - you automatically simulate the action in your own brain,” said Dr. Marco Iacoboni, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who studies mirror neurons. ”Circuits in your brain, which we do not yet entirely understand, inhibit you from moving while you simulate,” he said. ”But you understand my action because you have in your brain a template for that action based on your own movements. “

    [20]             Check out the post on the Betrayal of Corporate Clients at the Investment Fraud Lawyer Blog.

    [21]             Wrongful death compensation over at the Product Liability Law Blog.

    [22]             Looking toward the future, the Neuroethics and the Law Blog predicts that in the “experiential future, we will have better technologies to measure physical pain, pain relief, and emotional distress. These technologies should not only change tort law and related compensation schemes but should also change our assessments of criminal blameworthiness and punishment severity” here.

    [23]             This week Beck and Herrmann at the Drug and Device Law Blog note that “shame works wonders” in their post on the Free Speech Challenges to the FDA.

    [24]             Intentionally left blank.

    [25]             ADR professionals are often heard critics of the adversarial system, as can be seen over at the Australian Dispute Resolvers Blog where author Chris Whitelaw (really??) quotes the Journal of Law and Medicine as follows:

    The adversarial system of medical negligence fails to satisfy the main aims of tort law, those being equitable compensation of plaintiffs, correction of mistakes and deterrence of negligence. Instead doctors experience litigation as a punishment and, in order to avoid exposure to the system, have resorted not to corrective or educational measures but to defensive medicine, a practice which the evidence indicates both decreases patient autonomy and increases iatrogenic injury.

     (Iatrogenic, by the way, is a fancy term for “we have know idea whatsoever what the source of this ailment is). Chris is looking for comments so run on over there if you’ve been thinking about medical malpractice litigation during the marathon American health care debates.


    Negotiating Jury Verdicts: Apologies Work with Twelve People Good and True

    A big thank you to local mediator Steve Mehta for

    Apology Infuences Jury Verdicts, New Study Finds excerpted below and click here for full post.

    By Steven G. MehtaSteve Mehta

    A big question in trial for lawyers to consider is whether to apologize for their client’s “alleged” conduct.  Many lawyers are reluctant to do so under the theory that it could lead to a greater chance of liability being imposed on them.  Recent research sheds light on this issue.

    According to researchers at George Mason University and Oklahoma State University apologizing to a jury may lead more favorable results. The results of the study will be available in a the journal Contemporary Accounting Research.

    Assistant accounting professors Rick Warne of Mason and Robert Cornell of OSU found that apologizing can result in lower frequencies of negligence verdicts in cases when compared to a control group receiving no apology or remedial message. The researchers hypothesized that apologies allow the accused wrongdoer to express sorrow or regret about a situation without admitting guilt. Alternatively, a first-person justification allows the accused to indicate the appropriateness of decisions given the information available when decisions were made.

    “We found that apologies reduce the jurors’ need to assign blame to the [wrongdoer] for any negative outcomes to the client,” says Warne. “It also appears that an apology “influences the jurors impression that the auditor’s actions were reasonable and in accordance with professional standards.”

    Continue reading here.


    The Annual ADR Issue of the Advocate is Out and Online

    The Advocate - the Journal of Consumers Attorneys Organizations of Southern California publishes an annual ADR issue every year and this year's issue is a goldmine of mediation strategy and tactics.

    From preparation to closing, some of L.A.'s most prominent mediators reveal the secrets of getting the best deal available for your clients. 

    Read former CAALA Trial Lawyer of the year Sandy Gage's article on Getting the Best Results in Mediation and AIM founder, mediator and trainer Lee Jay Berman's Twelve Ways to Make Your Mediator Work Harder for You.

    JAMS mediator Alex Polsky reveals the secrets to Negotiating Like the Pros, while ADR's Ralph Williams counsels readers on the many ways to avoid the Top Ten Mediation Disasters.

    Mediator Phyllis Pollack who blogs and writes for the Federal Bar Association's Resolver also has a dynamite article here - Preparing for Mediation, Something to Ponder.

    Another top mediate.com blogger and mediator Steve Mehta reveals Why Some Cases Don't Settle and Others Do while Judicate West Executive Vice President of Business Development Rosemarie Chiusano writes about Top Neutral Qualities from one of the best sources on mediator excellence -- the ADR service provider.

    My ADR Services, Inc. colleagues Jan Schau, Michael Diliberto, Joan Kessler (the brains behind the entire issue!) and Leonard Levy round out the issue with Telling Lies, Telling Secrets (Schau); Opening Offers:  Who's on First (Diliberto); The Defense Reveals Mistakes that Could Cost Your Client Money; and Kessler's incisive executive summary of them all.

    Finally, former defense attorney and Judicate West mediator Jack Daniels, honored for his ethics and fairness by COAC outlines the 10 necessary steps to mediation success.

    Oh, yes, I'm here too with one of my mediation narratives, We Tell Ourselves Stories in Order to Live.

    The online Advocate can be read like a magazine, complete with turning pages.  It's a pretty cool online journal format in addition to being a great contribution to the growing literature on best mediation practices. 

    Dive in!  The water is warm and the natives are friendly.

    Sure We Can Compromise, But Can We Negotiate Justice?

    The following is the conclusion of an excellent post on the recent Pfizer-Justice Department settlement noting that it met "the People's" justice interests better than a judgment could have.  The full article, Settlement and Justice for All by Robert C. Bordone & Matthew J. Smith** can be found here at the Harvard Negotiation Law Review.

     More than honoring principles a court might champion, the negotiated settlement with Pfizer allows the Justice Department to secure commitments from Pfizer that would have been unlikely in a court verdict. In addition to the enormous cash payment, the settlement agreement allows for closer monitoring of Pfizer by Justice Department officials in the years ahead, ensuring corporate accountability and providing an extra measure of protection for consumers. As part of the deal, Pfizer entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services and will be required to maintain a corporate compliance program for the next five years. While a judge might choose to retain judicial oversight in a particular case, federal courts typically lack the expertise or resources to provide the kind of enforcement needed to ensure a systemic and long-term remedy in a technical or highly specialized case such as this.

    The Pfizer settlement represents the best kind of transparent, efficient, and wise government law enforcement. It holds Pfizer wholly accountable for its actions, sends a strong and clear message to the public that corporate malfeasance will not be tolerated, provides for ongoing enforcement, and it does it all at a fraction of the cost of trial. While many cases should proceed to trial for reasons of precedent and public policy, negotiated settlement – when approached with wisdom and aplomb – can be a most efficient and effective means of law enforcement.

    For my own posts and mediation, negotiation and justice, see Delivering Justice in Community Mediation, Negotiating Justice:  Anchoring, Bias, Dad and Sotomayor, and Do Interest-Based Negotiation and Mediation Trade Justice for Harmony?

    Thanks to Don Philbin for being one of the best navigators of quality in the ADRosphere!  "Friend" him on Facebook here.


    **/ Robert C. Bordone is the Thaddeus R. Beal Clinical Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Director of the Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program. Matthew J. Smith is a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School and a Clinical Fellow at the Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program




    The Difficulty of Changing Minds by L.A. Mediator Charles Parselle

    One of my own favorite quotes about "changing the other guy's mind" is from commercial mediator Jeff Kichaven:  "piling rationales atop one another to convince a litigator he is wrong is like raising your voice to communicate with a deaf man."

    Below is Los Angeles mediator Charles Parsell's more recent take on changing minds from the L.A. Mediator ning group.

    To settle a disputed matter, a person has to have a change of mind and here's where the problem starts. As Upton Sinclair said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends on him not understanding it."

    This is why mediation exists. But just because no one ever said it was supposed to be easy doesn't mean it can't be annoying. Sometimes that frustration has to find expression.

    Below is the most astounding expression of irritation and frustration and rage I have ever read.


    Here's the quiz:

    1. Who said these words and how close to a cardiac infarction was he or she on a Scale of 1-10?
    2. Can you beat it with your own expression of utter frustration and anger? (In 25 words of less, please.)

    Prize for the most creative response.

    For articles on the biases that make trying to change our views so difficult, see Scientific Daily's concise distillation of confirmation bias and ChangingMinds.org's article on cognitive dissonance.

    My own favorite expression of frustration -- "Had I, my lords, been born crested not cloven, you had not treated me thus!" ~ Elizabeth I Regina

    Six Negotiation Pitfalls to Avoid from the Stanford Graduate School of Business

    The advice below is part of the Stanford Graduate School of Business Knowledge Base.  I have excerpted the article.  To read the entire discussion (particularly if case study examples are helpful to you) click here.

    Poor planning

    After preparing your own agenda, outline the same for your opponents: What are their preferences, alternatives, and bottom line? Once at the bargaining table, test your hypotheses to determine what the opposition's priorities really are. Prepare a written goal and analysis sheet for yourself.

    Thinking the pie is fixed

    Usually it's not. You may make this common mistake when there is a "congruent issue," when both parties want the same thing. . . . .  [At least one GSB professor has found that] 20 to 35 percent of the students assume it's a fixed pie and miss an opportunity to get what both parties want.

    Failing to pay attention to your opponent

    One way to get inside your opponent's head and influence his attitude is to shape the issues for him, a technique called "framing." If you get your opponent to accept your view of the situation, then you can influence the amount of risk he is willing to take.

    Assuming that cross-cultural negotiations are just like "local" negotiations

    [A cross-culturally] sensitive negotiator . . .  capitalize[s] on the differences [among] cultures . . .

    Paying too much attention to anchors

    Anchors are part of a bargaining dynamic known as "anchoring and adjustment." This involves clearly setting the parameters for negotiation.

    Caving in too quick

    Accepting a well-priced deal too quickly can cause anger on the other side, too. . . .  No matter what the price, even if it's fair, always offer less — if only to make your opponent feel good about the deal. You may come up to full price in the end, but at least your opponent will feel as if he made you work for it.

    Don't Gloat

    Finally, when you've cut a sweet deal, never do the dance of joy in public by turning to your opponents and telling them you would have done it for less. Gloating will only drive your opponent to extract the difference from you sometime in the future.

    Negotiating Women at ForbesWoman

    If you're a certain age, you'll remember women's magazines as mostly "Can This Marriage Be Saved" (The Ladies Home Journal to which PWNSC members Cathy Scott's and Cordelia Mendoza's mother was always submitting articles) or 101 Things to do with Jello (Good Housekeeping). There were others, but let me just say this: if you wanted to read something that was well written, incisive, topical or entrepreneurial, you read men's magazines (Esquire, which was truly first rate in the 1960's; Playboy (!!) where President Jimmy Carter admitted to "lusting in his heart" in the 1970's and which male subscribers uniformly claimed to "read for the articles"); or magazines of mass circulation like The Atlantic, Harpers, or the New Yorker.

    When Ms. Magazine arrived to help head up the Second Wave Women's Movement in December 1971 as a "one-shot" sample insert in New York Magazine  -- remember "click"? -- "we" - the "new women" had our first journal.

    Today, more than thirty years later, we finally have our own business magazine and there's no shame in the word "woman" being attached to it. Having been an activist engaged in the Second Wave Women's Movement in the early '70s (first as purely an extra-curricular activity and later for the domestic peace corps' "Program for Local Service) I'm particularly proud to be a part of that magazine today: ForbesWoman -- right here!

    Check it out!

    Yet Another Path to Attorney Malpractice in Mediation Proceedings: Coerce Your Own Client

    Because the vast majority of my litigation and mediation clients were and are corporate entities or highly successful entrepreneurs, executives or managers, I was and am rarely in a position to coerce a client into doing something it didn't want to do. 

    As a mediator, however, I hear stories.  

    Some of the stories I hear are told by disgruntled individuals who feel as if they were coerced by their own counsel into settling their litigation during a mediationOthers have reported that they felt ganged up on by their attorney and the mediator.  Some have complained that they were unduly pressured to stay in the mediation process long after they were too tired or hungry to think clearly. 

    These stories are troubling to any mediator who values the good reputation of the mediation process itself.  They should also disturb attorney mediation advocates.

    Is it below the standard of care for an attorney to subtly (or not so subtly) pressure his or her client to settle litigation?  Under certain circumstances, I think it is.  Here's the bad news.  If a litigant is unhappy with the outcome of mediation, he or she is far more likely to bring a complaint (or lawsuit) against his or her own attorney.

    In a 2006 article in the Ohio  Journal on Dispute Resolution TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT. LUMP IT OR GRIEVE IT: DESIGNING MEDIATOR COMPLAINT SYSTEMS THAT PROTECT MEDIATORS, UNHAPPY PARTIES, ATTORNEYS, COURTS, THE PROCESS, AND THE FIELD  Paula M. Young, Assistant Professor at the Appalachian School of Law cites Mel Rubin on "settle and sue" cases which Rubin suggests are on the rise among clients unhappy with the outcome of a mediation.  Rubin "also suggests that if a client is unhappy with the outcome of mediation, he or she is more likely to sue his or her attorney for malpractice. Id.

    What might actionable attorney mediation malpractice look like?  Young cites the example of one woman who told the following story:

    I refused to sign several times. My attorney then began yelling at me to “shut-up and sign the damn thing” I wasn't allowed to leave until it was signed . . . . The words, “NO I can't sign this,” fell on deaf ears. I was so unfamiliar with the process of it all and what it meant and what the outcome entailed.

    Young has a systemic solution for problems like these:  procedural "justice" during the mediation itself and grievance procedures for dissatisfied litigants.  She writes:

    To the extent the procedural justice research indicates that parties who perceive they have received procedural justice in mediation also perceive that the negotiated outcome in mediation is fair, we would expect that these parties are not likely to later sue their attorneys for malpractice. Even when the client has little trust in his or her attorney, a mediation process that enhances procedural justice allows the party to assess directly whether he or she feels exploited or mistreated in the process.

    Even if the mediation process itself lacks procedural justice and the client accordingly remains dissatisfied and suspicious, a well-designed grievance system, emphasizing procedural justice from the client's perspective, may give the client the reassurances he or she needs. A client who suspects collusion between his or her lawyer and the neutral could seek the informed opinion of the regulatory body, without ever having to file a legal malpractice law suit.

    Remember that we tend to stumble and fail when we're Hungry, Angry, Lonely (marginalized) or Tired (HALT) and so do our clients.  When I notice litigants flagging or attorneys losing their tempers, I suggest a walk around the block, a nutrition break (not eating more cookies) and, in extreme cases (someone becomes ill during the course of the session) reconvening at a later date.  Remember how powerful and all-knowing you appear to be to your clients and what a strange and frightening land the "justice system" is for those who are encountering it for the first time.  

    There's no better defense to professional negligence actions that the quality of your relationship with your clients.  Keep channels of communication open.  Demand that your adversary and the mediator treat your client with respect.  At the first sign that a mediator is exercising undue influence on your client, say something, just as you would if opposing counsel were harassing your witness at a deposition.  Follow these dictates and you'll rarely if ever be worrying about calling your insurance carrier.

    Another Malpractice Trap for the Unwary Mediation Advocate: Draft Your Own Confidentiality Agreement

    As every mediation advocate must know by now, the California Supreme Court has locked down mediation confidences from attack at every turn.  There can be no implied waiver of Evidence Code section 1119's protections and you cannot be estopped to assert it (Simmons v. Ghaderi) (.pdf of the opinion here). 

    Your client may have been coerced into signing off on the agreement; may not have understood what she was signing; or her assent could have been induced by your opponent's material misrepresentations of fact.  Your client's insurance carrier may be guilty of actionable bad faith during the course of the mediation.  Too bad.  The mediation proceeding is given greater protection than given to penitents in a confessional.

    But you can inadvertently expressly waive the protections of mediation confidentiality if you've carelessly crafted your own confidentiality agreement.

    California's Second District Court of Appeal held in Thottam (.pdf of opinion here) that a party's confidentiality agreement did just that -- waived the protection -- permitting one party to introduce an otherwise inadmissible draft agreement into evidence for the purpose of enforcing an otherwise unenforceable mediated settlement agreement.

    As the Court in Thottam held, Section 1123(c)'s requirement that all parties to a mediated settlement agreement "expressly agree in writing . . . to its disclosure," may be satisfied by terms contained in a writing other than the alleged settlement agreement itself, including a writing executed before a settlement agreement has purportedly been entered into.  Because the "draft agreement" at issue in Thottam did not contain 1123's "magic" enforcement language and because the term sheet drawn up during the mediation was not sufficiently certain to enforce in any event, one party to the subject probate proceeding objected to its introduction into evidence and to the admission of testimony concerning otherwise confidential statements made during the mediation.

    Had there been no confidentiality agreement, the issue would have been controlled by Evidence Code sections 1115 et seq.; the "agreement" would have been excluded from evidence as non-compliant with section 1123; and, no evidence of statements made during the mediation would have been admitted into evidence. 

    Here's the danger of drafting your own confidentiality agreements in an attempt to expand the scope of mediation confidentiality.  

    According to the appellate court opinion, because the parties expanded the scope of confidentiality beyond that provided by the statute, the exception to the protection ("except as may be necessary to enforce any agreements from the Meeting") was broader than the enforcement exception contained in section 1123.  As one blogger cogently put it at the time, "the big print giveth and the small print taketh away."

    I think it's safe to say that this result was pretty much completely unpredictable and that it was within the standard of care for counsel to expand the protections contained in section 1119  (for an example of the problems created by its relatively narrow confines, see mediator Debra Healy's comments and my response about the scope of mediation confidentiality in an earlier post in this series).

    Post-Thottam, however, counsel must be extremely careful in drafting confidentiality agreements lest they inadvertently take away the protections the legislature created and the Supreme Court has so assiduously enforced.

    In short, don't get fancy.  Just stick with the language of section 1119

    More Ways to Commit Legal Malpractice as a Mediation Advocate

    If you didn't already understand how to protect your mediated settlement agreement from challenge, you do now.

    But wait a minute!  Is that what you want?  

    What if your client entered into the agreement only because its opponent made a material misstatement of fact?  What if one of your co-defendants challenges your settlement agreement as not having been made in good faith, thus exposing your client to potential liability for indemnity or contribution?  Can you win the "good faith settlement" motion without the testimony of the participants in the mediation?  

    In a comment on yesterday's post, Los Angeles mediator Joe Markowitz noted that:

    Parties are entitled to walk out of a mediation with a whole range of outcomes, from a completed settlement agreement, to a term sheet, to an oral understanding, to a promise to think over the other side's last offer, to a promise to see the other side in court! As long as both sides understand what they are getting at the conclusion of the mediation session, there should be no basis for a malpractice claim for any of these outcomes. If the parties choose to use a term sheet with no language in it indicating that they have settled their case, they just need to understand that any party can renege on the deal after the mediation. In some cases, that may be what the parties want, to give them some time to think the whole thing over

    Joe's comments put the emphasis in mediation advocacy back where it belongs -- on the fully informed assent of the parties and on the strategic plans of litigation counsel.  

    So here's yet another way to commit legal malpractice as a mediation advocate:  don't fully understand the implications of mediation confidentiality on the final resolution of your client's dispute.  I'll just bullet point ways to protect yourself and your client below and ask others to chime in with their recommendations:

    • if your client is relying upon the veracity of its opponent's representation in entering into the deal, write that representation into the agreement or deal points, i.e., "Party A and Party B both understand that Party A is entering into this agreement based upon the following representation/s: ....................................  "  Then you can include any other language that makes sense in the context of the agreement.  You can provide that Party B's production of documents confirming its representations to Party A is a condition precedent to Party A's obligations under the settlement agreement.  If your client simply needs protection down the line in the event FACT X proves to be untrue, you can include a liquidated damage clause in the agreement or provide for an expedited means of resolving any dispute resulting from the falsity of FACT X ; or, you could provide that the falsity of FACT X will render the settlement agreement null and void; 
    • you could avoid the problems created by the strict enforcement of mediation confidentiality  by agreeing with your opponent (in writing!) that the neutral-facilitated settlement negotiation is not a mediation to be governed by Evidence Code section 1115 et seq. but a settlement conference governed by Evidence Code section 1152 et seq.  This option would be a useful one to a defendant who is settling the action separately from co-defendants who might bring a motion challenging the good faith of your settlement.  
    • Less drastically, you could simply include in your settlement agreement a provision by which the parties agree that the mediation confidentiality protections as codified in section 1119 will not apply in the event a co-defendant challenges the good faith of the settlement.  Remember that the mediator is considered incompetent to testify so that your waiver of mediation confidentiality in the event testimony is needed to oppose a challenge to the good faith of your settlement may not permit the mediator to testify at the hearing (or to offer a declaration in opposition to the motion) as well he or she -- a neutral party -- shouldn't.

    You're a litigator.  There are probably hundreds of ways to skin this particular cat.  The keys are knowing and understanding the law of mediation confidentiality and thinking through all of the implications it might have on your clients' rights or interests down the line.  That's what we litigators do and we shouldn't abandon those strategic considerations just because we believe we're settling this case for good and it will never come back to haunt us or our clients again.

    Remember, you are in control of the process.  If you don't like mediation confidentiality, tailor a confidentiality agreement to suit your circumstances.  You will, of course, have to "sell" your proposal to your opponent.  The  best time to do that might well be at the end of the mediation rather than at its commencement.  By that time, your opponent is pretty darn committed to the resolution of the lawsuit.  His client is already planning on ways he can more profitably spend his time and money other than on further litigation, attorneys' fees, and court costs.  The plaintiff is, I guarantee you, already spending the settlement monies or planning the celebration back at the office and wondering whether this might lead to the promotion he or she has been waiting for.

    Yet another way to commit legal malpractice (and how to avoid it) tomorrow!


    Diplomatic Engagement to Settle Your Commercial Litigation

    Today's New York Times Op-Ed piece on "diplomatic engagement" (Terms of Engagement) as a strategy for "chang[ing] [Iran's] perception of its own interests and realistic options and, hence, to modify its policies and its behavior," offers good strategic negotiation lessons for mediators and mediation advocates alike.  As Crocker explains:

    [E]ach case of engagement has common elements. Engagement is a process, not a destination. It involves exerting pressure, by raising questions and hypothetical possibilities, and by probing the other country’s assumptions and thinking. Above all, it involves testing how far the other country might be willing to go. Properly understood, the diplomacy of engagement means raising questions that the other country may wish to avoid or be politically unable to answer. It places the ball in the other country’s court.

    Litigation is an extremely good way to "exert[] pressure," on your negotiation partner by burdening it with the costs of  waging the adversarial contest.  The litigation itself not only "rais[es] questions and hypothetical possibilities" but through the process of discovery, it also "probes [the opponent's] assumptions and thinking" and "test[s] how far [your opponent] might be willing to go" to achieve victory.

    Parties disappointed with mediation and mediators are usually dissatisfied with the mediator's inability to engage in the final step of "engagement diplomacy" -- "raising questions that the [opponent] may use to avoid or be [positionally] unable to answer."  A good mediator is unafraid to raise those difficult questions with each side of a dispute.  But raising those difficult questions is not enough.  A good mediator must also be able to deliver bad news to the parties in such a way that the parties are able to hear it. 

    If the goal of the negotiators -- the attorneys -- is to "change the[ir] [opponent's] perception of its own interests and realistic options and, hence, to modify its policies and its behavior," the negotiators and their clients must be prepared to:

    • reveal to the mediator
      • hidden constraints preventing them from modifying their demand or offer; and,
      • hidden interests that must be served in order to justify any such modification
    • candidly acknowledge (in separate caucus)
      • the weaknesses of their position; and,
      • any constraints on their client's willingness and ability to put their convictions to the test of a jury verdict or judgment by the court
    • help the mediator help their clients understand that most litigation is based upon differing subjective experiences of the same "objective" series of events so that no one must admit that the other side is "right" and their own side is "wrong"

    An example of the lengths to which people will go to be "right" is unfortunately provided to us today by the obituary of the first anti-abortion advocate to be shot and killed for his beliefs.  The slain activist spent years protesting outside the car dealership owned by Tony Young, who explained how the protests finally ended (from Slain Abortion Opponent Loved the Controversy)

    Mr. Young said that after about three years of protesting outside his dealership, Mr. Pouillon came in and offered a truce. “ ‘Tony,’ ” Mr. Young said the exchange began, “if you would just agree that I’m right on my beliefs, I’ll stop.’

    “I just told him, ‘Sure, Jim, you’re right,’ ” Mr. Young said, chuckling. After that, he said, Mr. Pouillon moved on.

    Although few cases could so easily turn on the dime of a semi-sincere acknowledgement that the other side is "right," most attorneys would be surprised by how much value can be generated by acknowledging that the other side's version of the facts or the law is not crazy, evil, bizarre, intellectually dishonest or asserted in bad faith.  See The Biggest Lie in the Business:  It's Only About Money.  As I noted there:

    The social scientists who study these things say that the way in which we respond to adversity "often reflects the fact that [our] prestige or status has been threatened more than the fact that [our] purchasing power has been diminished." Miller, Disrespect and the Experience of Injustice, Annual Review of Psychology (2002). In other words, the corporate C.E.O., like any other kid on the block, will retaliate when he feels he has been disrespected.

    Conversely, research shows that business people are reluctant to recommend legal action if they believe that they and their company have been treated respectfully. 

    By the same token that business people are reluctant to recommend legal action if they believe their company has been treated respectfully, they are often far more willing to settle litigation if they believe their positions have been heard and acknowledged as having been made in good faith.  For those headed toward settlement discussions or mediation, Crocker has good advice:

    [B]y far the greatest risk of [diplomatic] engagement is that it may succeed.  If we succeed in changing the position of the other [side's] decision-makers, we then must decide whether we will take yes for an answer and reciprocate their moves with steps of our own.  If talk is fruitful, a negotiation will begin about taking reciprocal steps down a jointly defined road.  Engagement diplomacy forces us to make choices.

    If litigators and their clients are aligned in the interest of settling litigation, they must prepare themselves to take "yes for an answer" by having in place a strategy of engagement that will permit them to reciprocate the other side's moves with steps of their own.  A good mediator should be capable of bringing all parties to the on-ramp of the road that counsel and their commercial clients are well-placed to and highly skilled at jointly defining.    

    Power and Trust as Negotiation Strategies and the Lessons of The Cove

    Powerlessness and silence go together; one of the first efforts made in any totalitarian takeover is to suppress the writers, the singers, the journalists, those who are the collective voice.   - Margaret Atwood

    Every year, a town in Japan named Taiji kills 2300 dolphins and small whales.  This year, that slaughter was halted for a single day because of the activism of the man who trained Flipper for television, Rick O'Barry.  Here's his account of the making of The Cove.   

    Below us, just across a two-fingered inlet, was the Killing Cove, where 2300 dolphins and small whales are butchered every year. [/*] It's the place Allison and Alex had infiltrated in 2002, managing to cut the nets and free some 15 dolphins before the two were assaulted by fishermen and arrested.  The killing here is part of a cetacean slaughter that is unregulated by the I[nternational] W[haling] C[ommission], which has no jurisdiction over the smallest whales.  The Japanese don't even have to pretend it's for scientific research.  The government issues permits to fishermen and over 22,000 dolphins, porpoises, pilot whales and false killer whales are killed annually along Japan's coasts.  The meat is sold to school lunch programs and grocery stores and is terrifically high in mercury.  Independent random tests have found the dolphin meat to contain three to 3500 times the levels deemed safe by the Japanese Government.

    What did Flipper's trainer want to do?  He wanted to stop the slaughter.  Here's where the Harvard Negotiation article on power in negotiation comes in.  I'll let the authors of the Harvard article speak for themselves.

    In order to understand [why the less powerful sometimes prevail against their more powerful bargaining partners] one needs to analyze power as more of a relational and perceptional concept. The relational dimension is captured in Dahl’s definition that A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something B would not otherwise do." For example, most non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are less resourceful than the World Bank. Yet the Bank can enhance the legitimacy of its programs by including NGOs. Over time, participating NGOs could influence the Bank’s agendas to some extent.  Thus viewed, parties with asymmetric resources may well share a mutually dependent relationship.

     It is also worthwhile to note that power sometimes lies in the eye of the beholder. A party’s decisions may be shaped as much by its perception of the situation as by objective reality.  Zartman and Rubin, in studying power in negotiation, define it as “the perceived capacity of one side to produce an intended effect on another through a move that may involve the use of resources.[A]s Fisher and Ury have pointed out, the resources a party owns do not necessarily translate into effective negotiating power, which is much more context-specific. The authors cite the example of the US, which “is rich and has lots of nuclear bombs, but neither has been of much help in deterring terrorist actions or freeing hostages when they have been held in places like Beirut"

    The common tactics under a power-based approach include coercion, intimidation, and using one’s status and resources to overpower opponents. 

    One tactic omitted from the list of power-based tactics is one of the most compelling -- the strategy used by Martin Luther King, Jr., Ghandi and, yes, anti-abortion activists -- bearing witness and shaming.


    There are many moments of shaming and bearing witness in The Cove --   the moment when activist O'Barry holds his iPhone before the eyes of the Japanese official who has just told him that cateceans are killed quickly, with surgical precision (you can see that moment in the trailer here).  There's the day O'Barry, who has been permanently barred from IWC's conferences, walks in with a flat screen television strapped to his chest and silently moves in front of each row of delegates, showing them the video of the slaughter in the Killing Cover.  And then, at movie's end, the wrenching scene of O'Barry standing in the middle of a crosswalk in Tokyo, that same flat screen  on his chest, silently bearing witness as thousands rush past him and a few, half a dozen perhaps, stop in their tracks to watch the footage of the fisherman in the Killing Cove that he and his team gathered at the risk of their freedom and perhaps their lives.

    It appears that the slaughter was halted for only a day.  Here's O'Barry's account of that day  (excerpt below):

    I vowed to be back in Taiji when the dolphin killing began. I’ve often been here alone, or accompanied by a few environmentalists. Sometimes, I was able to talk a major media organization into sending someone.

    When I got off the bus at the Cove this afternoon, I was accompanied by my son Lincoln O’Barry’s film crew, a crew from Associated Press, Der Spiegel (the largest magazine in Germany), and the London Independent.

    I was talking with the police, as the international journalists stood around listening, suddenly a camera crew arrived from Japan! And then another! And then still another!

    You have to understand that this is SO IMPORTANT. These TV stations have REFUSED to cover the story in Taiji for years and years. NOW, for the first time, they have shown up, with cameras rolling.

    The Cove movie led to the strong action by the city of Broome, Australia, in suspending the sister-city relationship with Taiji. So now, the Japanese media are sitting up and listening, for the first time.

    [A]ll Japanese will soon know about the cover-up that has occurred by the government in refusing to stop mercury-contaminated dolphin meat from being sold to unsuspecting Japanese consumers and children.

    But Taiji can change this image of shame, if they want to. I will be telling them that the town of Nantucket used to be the capitol of the whale killing industry in the US. Now, it uses its history of whaling combined with whale-watching to market tourism very successfully. Whales and dolphins are worth more alive than dead. Taiji can do this, too. But the killing has to stop.

    Alas, the cessation of the killing lasted only a single day.

     Once shameful national behavior has been exposed (a contentious or power-based negotiation strategy) the weaker parties (people vs. governments) must build their negotiating strength through trust.  As Power and Trust in Negotiation and Decision Making asserts:

    Identification-based trust is grounded in empathy with another person’s desires and intentions and leads one to “take on the other’s value because of the emotional connection between them.”  It often exists among friends. Fostering understanding and friendly ties may therefore be a step to engender identification-based trust. For example, Reagan and Gorbachev developed a cooperative relationship in the late 1980s partly because they had repeated face-to-face talks over the years.  Reagan also sought to cultivate a non-hostile atmosphere in these talks by appealing to common interests, actively diffusing tensions and using his sense of humor. Because friendship and liking tend to generate trust and assent – sometimes in a subconscious fashion – Cialdini observes that salespersons often befriend their customers before promoting their products. Trusting someone in certain situations may thus come with risks of manipulation or exploitation

    In asymmetrical power relationships, the building of trust among activists is necessary for the formation of a grass-roots coalition capable of overwhelming more powerful parties (perceived economic and national interests as well as that most powerful of impasse creators:  the status quo) with passionate commitment to an idea and the hope that the idea can be made a reality.  

    O'Barry's documentary is a call to action that asks us to respond to our "better angels."  If enough of us hear the call and respond, there is no power that can stop this movement to stop the killing. 

    As Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, "the arc of history is long but it bends toward justice."


    The Harvard Negotiation article is a gift from Don Philbin who directed his Facebook readers to  Power and Trust in Negotiation and Decision-Making:  A Critical Evaluation at the Harvard Negotiation.  If you have any interest whatsoever in the dispute resolution techniques of negotiation, arbitration or mediation and you're not following Don (whose Facebook page is here and whose tremendous LinkedIn Arbitration and Mediation Group is here and whose group blog Disputing is here) you're missing the Mother of All ADR Aggregators and your life is the poorer for it.

    */  There were reports that international pressure caused the suspension of the annual dolphin hunt but the linked article from the Japan Times suggests that it resumed on the second day of the season on September 2.

    How to Manage Your Negotiating Team from Harvard Business Review

    The last time I trained an in-house legal department, I asked every group manager this questionif I could leave a silver bullet behind, what would it be? 

    The response was unanimous from this well-run Fortune 500 Company:  fix our relationship with the __________ Department:  it chronically undermines our negotiations with outsiders.  The  _________ Department was the only one sending none of its people to the two-day negotiation training.  An executive friend of mine said, "that's not surprising - no one can see a black hole."

    This month's Harvard Business Review sees the black hole in every negotiation team in its September '09 must-read article, How to Manage Your Negotiating Team by Jeanne M. Brett, Ray Friedman, and  Kristin Behfar.

    Despite the _________ Department's absence, I created groups of in-house attendees who represented each internal department and asked them to generate a list of the interests of their negotiating teams, including the _________ department, which is one of the recommendations made by Brett, Friedman and Behfar.

    There's an executive summary at the link above but I'd shell out the money for a copy of the print magazine to have the full text of this article.  Here are the recommendations of the experts:

    • Plot out the conflicts
    • Work with constituents
    • Mediate conflicts of interest
    • Persuade with data
    • simulate the negotiation
    • assign roles to capitalize on team members strengths and interests
    • establish a plan for intrateam communication

    I'll write a post a day about each of these strategies when I return from vacation.  In the meantime, litigators who work with teams inside the firm; who defend complex litigation with joint defense groups; and, who must bargain with others with very different interests (construction litigation comes to mind) should be thinking of the ways in which integrated negotiation planning could maximize the settlement benefits to be gained by strategic partners.

    The Five Most Effective Ways to Break Negotiation Impasse: Part V

    Know and Use the Rules of Influence

    Nearly all negotiators know Robert Cialdini’s six “rules” of influence: reciprocation, commitment and consistency, social proof, liking, authority and scarcity. They are easy to remember because we are all influenced by them every day.

    When your waiter puts a mint on the table or your local charity sends you free mailing labels, both benefit from the power of reciprocity. Not only do we feel uncomfortable unless we reciprocate this generous behavior, we will reward it in kind. Waiters' tips go up and donations increase – however modestly -- when these benefits are bestowed on us. In the negotiation of a dispute, an acknowledgement that you’ve heard and understood your opponent’s position; or that you are sorry he was harmed by the activities you continue to believe were benign, does in fact motivate your adversary to respond in kind – often by revealing otherwise hidden interests or concealed fears that can break impasse.

    Authority: I’ve never been a Judge, but I am a “settlement officer” with the United States District Court for the Central District of California. I’ve also tried cases to a jury and have twenty-five years of complex commercial litigation experience. Each one of these credentials gives me a different kind of authority, but all of them make what I say to a litigant considering settlement more persuasive.

    The District Court gives me a little lapel pin to wear and I always wear it when I'm doing the federal court's "settlement officer" work.  I have a badge!  To my peers, “settlement officer” means nothing other than a volunteer for the Court. To the parties, however, being an “officer” of a federal court sounds impressive; authoritative. Difficult mediations often have dead time in them in which the parties engage in small talk. When clients ask me about the lapel pin, I modestly explain my role as a “settlement officer” for the District Court. The parties invariably treat me with greater deference after this conversation. I know it sounds like a small point, but sometimes all you need is one extra little push to get the parties past impasse.

    Liking: I do not believe it’s possible to be a skillful negotiator unless you are likeable. This trait is especially important for a mediator who must garner the trust of a complete stranger with lightening speed. You do not have to possess rock star likeability to accomplish this. All you need do is to find something to like about the others. We all want approval and we all wish to be admired and desired. The good news is that all of us have some trait or characteristic that is desirable and admirable. If you look for those traits in another and casually remark on them, the cycle of liking and being liked is commenced.

    The cycle is speeded if you couple your liking with something similarly likeable in yourself. "You’re a musician! I’ve always wished I’d taken music classes. My husband (or sister, or aunt, or best friend) is a pianist with a small chamber group locally."  Now you're not only more likable, you're like "one of us" and you get the benefit of relatedness, an easier "fit" and an automatic feeling of trust and confidence.  See Conspiracy Theories and Granfalloons for the full story on the way "liking" and affiliation work.  If you’re not serving as a neutral but simply a negotiator, you can couple this “liking” and musical affiliation with reciprocity: “do let me give you my sister's chamber music  schedule; during the summer they give free concerts in the park.”  A trifecta of influencers.

    Social Proof : “Yes, mom, if I see my friends jumping off a cliff I’m pretty inclined to do so as well.” Our tendency to "monkey see, monkey do" may begin in Middle or High School, but it does not end there. You don’t have to live in Los Angeles to feel the effect of this tendency to do what others do – you only need to be in a traffic jam caused by “rubber-necking” once to remember that we’re primates. This is part of the value of market valuations and jury verdict reports. They not only provide “authority” for your position on price, but they carry the weight of other people’s valuation. This is social proof.

    Scarcity: the effect of scarcity on value is something we see every day in store windows and newspaper ads: “limited offer” and “one time only sale” are recycled over and over again by the same stores for the same items and yet we’re moved to feel an urgency that brings us into the store and makes us purchase an item we don’t need and didn’t desire. Litigators often use the principle of scarcity to “sell” the resolution of litigation. “After we commence discovery, this offer will no longer be on the table.” Or. “We’ll be picking a jury in thirty days. Don’t expect to see a demand this low ever again if we don’t settle by day’s end. Scarcity.

    Commitment and Consistency: Many neutrals like to begin a mediation in joint session for the purpose of obtaining the parties’ commitment to settling the case today if reasonable terms are offered. It’s almost impossible to resist signing on to this principle and it's common for people to feel bound by it even if circumstances change. At some point during the negotiation, the parties will begin to feel committed to the resolution of the litigation. They can picture themselves free of its many burdens or receiving money rather than spending it on their attorneys. Seeking and making commitments holds our feet to the fire of our intention. Ask anyone who’s ever made public her decision to lose weight or exercise at least three days a week. If we act inconsistently with the promise we’ve made to friends, family or community, we fear a loss of “face.”

    If you apply the five principles subject of this series to your negotiations, you will get the better part of the bargain on nearly every occasion. Remember – simply asking diagnostic questions will make you a better negotiator than all but seven percent of your bargaining partners. Add to this the ability to deftly frame the negotiation favorably to you; to anchor the bargaining range to your liking and to be influential in your dealings and I guarantee you success in most of your business affairs.

    The Five Most Effective Ways to Break Negotiation Impasse: Part IV

    Give a Reason for Every Number

     (right, the ultimate in lame reason giving:  the dog ate my homework!)

     To reinforce anchoring and framing effects of first offers and offer-characterization, always state the reason you are valuing the item to be traded in the manner you are.  “I’m offering to pay you $20,000 in exchange for a dismissal because (choose one or more):  (a) I impeached your witness with interrogatory answers in the deposition; (b) the only case law in your favor has been questioned by the Supreme Court and hasn’t been cited since 1972; (c) your expert witness went to Ralph’s School of Law and mine went to Harvard; (d) recent jury verdicts for the theft of trade secrets of this nature have been less than the cost of doing the first round of discovery; and, (e) anything else you have. 


    In experiments on reason giving, researchers have found that people are far more likely to accommodate others if a reason is given even if the reason makes no sense whatsoever.  In one such experiment, students were asked to cut into a line at Kinkos.  One group was instructed to give no reason; another to give a good reason ("I’m late for class”) and another to give an irrational reason (“because I want to”). Those who provided no rationale were, not surprisingly, the least successful. Only sixty percent of them were allowed to "cut" into the line. Those who presented a logical rationale got what they wanted an extraordinary 94% of the time.   But here's the truly remarkable part. Those students who presented a meaningless rationale such as, "I want to cut in line because I need to," racked up a ninety-three percent success rate, only one percent less than their logical peers.


    Every new offer or demand provides another opportunity to influence your adversary about the value (or lack thereof) in the subject matter of the lawsuit. 


    There's nothing litigators do better than rationalize, justify, explain, elaborate, rebut, support, and opine.  Don't leave those excellent tools at home when it comes time to negotiate the resolution of your lawsuit.


    The Five Most Effective Ways to Break Negotiation Impasse: Part III

    In that most famous of sales movies,David Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross, the under-appreciated Alec Baldwin gave his sorry group of cold-callers the prime directive of sales:  Always Be Closing.  You close when you convene the negotiation, close when you open it, close when you ask diagnostic questions, close when you offer your bargaining partner coffee, and close by MAKING THE FIRST OFFER.

    In an environment of uncertainty where the value of one or more items to be traded is not fixed, the negotiator who makes the first offer will “anchor” the bargaining session in her favor throughout the bargaining session. Even when we know that someone else is trying to influence us by framing an issue or valuing the subject matter of a dispute, we will be influenced. We can’t help it. Our brains just work that way. To encourage your opponent’s vulnerable mind to be influenced with your valuation, it is best to state the reasons for your bargaining position. Researchers have noted that low valuations draw our attentions to the weaknesses of the item to be traded – a car for instance – and that high valuations draw our attentions to its strengths. You should take advantage of this by coupling your first offer with the reasons why the item you are buying or the thing you are selling should be valued low for a buyer or high for a seller.  

    And now a little something from the man who tore the sheets off the world of the cold call; off of the men working on a draw against commissions; off the guys who came around my house before I turned ten years old to talk dirty, make me paper airplanes, and perfect the lies that would get tomorrow's prospects to sign on the dotted line:  David Mamet.

    The Five Most Effective Ways to Break Negotiation Impasse: Part II

    Someone recently told me that you can't argue with a story, only with a position or another argument.  That's why narrative is such a powerful impasse breaker and why asking diagnostic questions, which elicit stories rather than arguments, so often bridges gaps between the parties that yawn as wide as the Grand Canyon  That's why I'm listing Asking Diagnostic Questions as the second most powerful means of breaking negotiation impasses.

    Professor Leigh Thompson of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University has written that in controlled experiments, only seven percent of all negotiators ask diagnostic questions when to do so would dramatically improve the outcome of the negotiation.  

    Diagnostic questions are those that reveal your bargaining partners’ desires, fears, preferences and needs. Though your bargaining partner will never reveal its true bottom line, it may well acknowledge that it places a far lesser or higher value on the subject of litigation  – real property, for instance -- than you do. And though your adversary will never acknowledge the rectitude, nor even often the good faith, of your legal or factual position, she may easily disclose that she needs the money she seeks to infuse capital into her business, to pay back debts, to put her children through college or to acquire much-needed catastrophic health insurance.

    You may also find that your bargaining partner is willing to disclose whether he is risk averse or risk courting and whether his predictions for the future of an enterprise – yours perhaps – are more optimistic or pessimistic than your own. Once you learn what your opponent wants, needs and prefers, you can commence – or reconvene – a negotiation that is more tailored to your adversary’s desires; one that will increase the number and value of items both of you have to exchange with one another.

    Just a few examples from my own practice:

    • a case concerning the repayment of over-paid health insurance benefits to physicians settled at a number the defendant said she would never pay when the Plaintiff revealed the existence of an agreement between it and a board member that no one else who was overpaid would get a better deal than he had.
    • a case concerning the dissolution of a partnership settled when I asked Partner A what his valuation of the enterprise's inventory was in a case to dissolve the partnership.  Because he placed a far lower value on that inventory than did Partner B, Partner B (who planned to continue in the import-export business)  was happy to accept A's valuation, offering to purchase it from him on the spot (and agreeing to a lower valuation of the good will of the partnership business than he'd earlier been prepared to acknowledge).
    • a property damage case settled when I asked the Plaintiff, in separate caucus, what he planned to do with the proceeds of the settlement.  The defendant, who "knew someone in the business," was able to obtain the item Plaintiff wanted at a lower cost than Plaintiff could have procured it, bridging the gap between the parties' negotiating positions.
    • a patent infringement case settled when I asked the Plaintiffs what they were afraid would happen if they agreed to give the alleged infringer a license to manufacture and market the allegedly infringing product.  Plaintiffs said they believed the market would "get really hot" in three years time, allowing the infringer to make a killing on their technology.  When I asked the defendant what he thought about Plaintiffs' suspicions, he said he planned to phase the product out of his product line within three years.  I suggested that the defendant agree to a graduated royalty which would require him to pay an unusually high percentage of its sales during the years Plaintiffs were convinced he'd be selling "their" product and at a time when Defendant swore he would not. 
    • In a lemon law case, I asked the Plaintiffs to tell the mobile home manufacturer to explain why they'd purchased the $200,000 vehicle in the first place.  Plaintiff's answer so undermined the defendant's "buyer's remorse" theory of the case that the matter settled quickly thereafter.
    • I asked a perplexed defendant why the Plaintiff had chosen to sue it out of the entire universe of Plaintiff's competitors.  Defendant quickly responded:  "because we have better people, more talent and potentially better technology.  Plaintiff wants to remove us from the market"  I thereafter brokered a deal involving a joint venture between the two companies using company A's talent and company B's far larger distribution network.

    As you can see from these few examples, diagnostic questions break impasse on "pure money" cases, as well as in those where the parties more or less obviously have something other than money to trade.  Once again, it is critical to remember that no one wants money but everyone wants something that money can buy.  Ask the ultimate reporter question about your negotiating partner's fears, desires, wants and needs -- WHY? -- and you will see impasse dissolving before your very eyes.

    With apologies to "staying on topic" purists, I give my Lit Major readers the literary passage that comes to mind whenever I think too long about asking questions:

    try to love the questions themselves as if they were locked rooms or books written in a very foreign language. Don't search for the answers, which could not be given to you now, because you would not be able to live them. And the point is to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps then, someday far in the future, you will gradually, without even noticing it, live your way into the answer.

    Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet.

    The Five Most Effective Ways to Break Negotiation Impasse

    I begin a series today on what I believe are the five most effective ways to break impasse.  This morning's impasse-breaker will aid business people negotiating the settlement of a commercial dispute the most because it requires the generation of hitherto unseen business advantages to sweeten the pot.

    Transform the dispute into an opportunity to make a business deal

    Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt famously said that “litigation is just a business negotiation being conducted in the Courts.” If you look at litigated disputes in that light, the settlement option landscape immediately broadens. There are only certain remedies available in court or arbitration and those remedies may not be exactly what the parties are looking for.

    If we remember that money is simply the means to obtain something else the parties desire – better distribution networks; insurance against future calamity; the security of knowing one’s intellectual property has not fallen in a competitor’s hands; health care; a college fund; even the acknowledgement that we have heard and understand our opponent’s point of view – we can add value to our negotiations before attempting to distribute it in a way that seems fair and just under the circumstances.

    Often more important than finding commonalities between bargaining partners is locating those items that the parties value differently. A dollar may just be a dollar, but one company’s inventory, trade secrets or present pool of talent will seldom be worth the same in our competitor’s hands as it is in ours. In some cases our assets may be more valuable to another than they are to us, in which case we can choose the higher value as the central rationale for our proposal, remembering that where value is uncertain, the first party to put a price tag on it will “anchor” the bargaining range in his favor throughout the course of the negotiation.

    Therefore, a savvy negotiator searches for both common and divergent interests in an attempt to put as many different options on the bargaining table as possible. Generating such options can melt impasse over hard “bottom line” dollar and legal position conflicts and transform a distributive negotiation session ("what I lose, you win and what you lose I win") into a business opportunity that will leave both parties better off than they could have imagined.

    For similar advice to those who believe themselves to be bargaining from a position of weakness, click here.

    Negotiating Rational Choice, Statistics and the Future of Mankind


    (right:  Bueno de Mesquita's "Logic of Political Survival")

    The book at right was brought to my attention for the first time by this highlighted text in Good Magazine: 

    In the foreboding world view of rational choice, everyone is a raging dirtbag.

    What makes the Logic of Political Survival Relevant to negotiators is Bruce Bueno de Mesquita's application of game theory to international political problems such as the reduction of conflict between Israel and Palestine (quoted below).   

    I'll have to admit that his claim to "produce a settlement [in litigation] that is 40 percent better than what the attorneys think is the best that can be achieved” -- also caught my attention and should draw my attorney readers into de Mesquita's world, first from Good Magazine's article The New Nostradamus and (at the end of this post, today's article in the Sunday New York Times).

    First, de Mesquita's own words on the Middle East.

    In my view, it is a mistake to look for [peacemaking] strategies that build mutual trust [between the Israelis and the Palestinians] because it ain’t going to happen. Neither side has any reason to trust the other, for good reason. . . . 

    Land for peace is an inherently flawed concept because it has a fundamental commitment problem. If I give you land on your promise of peace in the future, after you have the land, as the Israelis well know, it is very costly to take it back if you renege. You have an incentive to say, ‘You made a good step, it’s a gesture in the right direction, but I thought you were giving me more than this. I can’t give you peace just for this, it’s not enough.’

    Conversely, if we have peace for land—you disarm, put down your weapons, and get rid of the threats to me and I will then give you the land—the reverse is true: I have no commitment to follow through. Once you’ve laid down your weapons, you have no threat. 

    The "rational" solution?

     In a peaceful world, what do the Palestinians anticipate will be their main source of economic viability? Tourism. This is what their own documents say. And, of course, the Israelis make a lot of money from tourism, and that revenue is very easy to track. As a starting point requiring no trust, no mutual cooperation, I would suggest that all tourist revenue be [divided by] a fixed formula based on the current population of the region, which is roughly 40 percent Palestinian, 60 percent Israeli. The money would go automatically to each side. Now, when there is violence, tourists don’t come. So the tourist revenue is automatically responsive to the level of violence on either side for both sides. You have an accounting firm that both sides agree to, you let the U.N. do it, whatever. It’s completely self-enforcing, it requires no cooperation except the initial agreement by the Israelis that they are going to turn this part of the revenue over, on a fixed formula based on population, to some international agency, and that’s that.

    It actually gets much more controversial and interesting than this -- the "kicker" to the headline in Good Magazine reads:

    Can a fringe branch of mathematics forecast the future? A special adviser to the CIA, Fortune 500 companies, and the U.S. Department of Defense certainly thinks so

    If that intrigues you, you'll want to read the entire article here.  And you'll also want to read today's New York Times article on de Mesquita,

    Can Game Theory Predict When Iran Will Get the Bomb?


    Closed Dutch Auctions from Mediator Ralph Williams, III

    Ralph Williams August 2009 ADR Tip




    When 50-50 partners break up, the Closed Dutch Auction is an effective way to set the buyout price. The partners exchange sealed bids stating the price at which they will sell their 50% share. The highest bidding partner "wins" and buys out the "loser" at the "loser's" price.

    The price set by each partner must be realistic, because if he "loses", the partner will have to sell at the price he set. Setting too low a price has a double adverse effect; the "losing" partner will be the seller at the lower price.

    Ralph O. Williams III
    ADR: 310.201.0010

    Direct: 818.986.8101

    Negotiating the Power of Reciprocity with "The Go Giver"


    A friend recently reminded me of a book review I wrote for one of those "get rich" books The Go Giver (below) for the sorely-missed Complete Lawyer.   I reprint it here in the Negotiation Blog because I talk a lot about the power of reciprocity in bargaining.  I'd summarize my response here, but I can't say it any better than I did below. 

    The Go-Giver, A Guide to a Life Lived Richly

    American business people have been writing self-help guides to financial success since Benjamin Franklin penned Advice to a Young Tradesman and Poor Richard’s Almanac. Business consultants Bob Burg and John Davis Mann add to this tradition a new parable -- The Go-Giver, A Little Story About a Powerful Business Idea.              

    As the title suggests, Burg and Mann recommend that we discard “go getting” -- hard work focused on individual success -- in favor of “go giving” – authentically passionate work focused on the success of others. To demonstrate how material wealth follows generous action, Burg and Mann create an elusive but legendary business consultant “Pindar,” who shares his Five Laws of Stratospheric Success with anyone who promises to practice these principles in all their affairs.    

    The pilgrim in this progress is “Joe,” an earnest and hard-working salesman on the brink of a third failed quarter. After promising to follow the laws Pindar teaches him, Joe meets a handful of spectacularly successful givers. These include former hot dog vendor Ernesto, who credits his restaurant and real estate empire to giving more than you take; Nicole, who owes her rise from school teacher to educational software titan to giving much to many; former insurance salesman Sam, whose many philanthropies thrive on giving without expectation of return; and, Debra, who learns to succeed in business by giving of her true self. Having quickly learned each lesson, Joe himself exemplifies Law No. 5 – the willingness to receive the bounty that flows from giving.  

    Unfortunately, as a guide to financial success, The Go-Giver is more fairy tale than instruction manual. All of the business icons Joe visits ascribe their riches to acts of authentic generosity. It is apparent from the context in which these stories arise, however, that the key here is neither virtue nor the inherent satisfaction to be found in giving. The key is choosing the right people to give to – those with wealth, monied connections or the power to create economic opportunities for others.   

    If we are moved to visit shut-ins; bring recovery meetings to incarcerated felons; or make micro-loans to third-world entrepreneurs, this book is not for us. This is focused giving and the focus is on the “haves,” not the “have nots.”  If we are among the unemployed; the sick; or, the elderly, we’ll need another set   of “Laws” for success  – chief among them laws guaranteeing the education; training; and, health care necessary to enable us to make use of the opportunities created by the Go-Givers’ generosity.  [1]

    Walking the Razor’s Edge

    Most Complete Lawyer readers are, however, the type of business people for whom The Go-Giver is written.   No matter where we appear on the legal economic ladder, as educated people with access to the justice system, we are well poised to engage in random acts of kindness for, and reap rewards from, those who are well situated to spread a little green.  [2]   So long as we successfully negotiate the razor’s edge between opportunism and genuine acts of generosity, Burg and Mann’s advice will likely redound not only to our emotional and spiritual well-being, but also to our financial success.    

    Most readers will, of course, recognize Joe’s spectacular rise from failing salesman to coffee-bean multi-millionaire as the fairy tale the The Go-Giver all but announces itself to be. There is value here, however, in the quotidian acts of kindness in which Joe engages to satisfy Pindar’s requirement that he promptly practice the “Laws” conveyed.     

    The most credible results of Joe’s baby steps on the road to becoming a generous human being are his improved relationships with his fellows. Practicing “not keeping track,” Joe foregoes telling his wife his own work-a-day worries, focusing his entire attention upon the challenges of her day. His reward? An entirely believable note of love and gratitude on her pillow the following morning. Practicing “giving more value” than he receives, Joe serves coffee to his workmates as they struggle to meet a collective quarter-end deadline. Though Joe reports “feeling like an idiot” in doing so, it is clear that the warmth and bemused surprise expressed by is co-workers is its own reward.     

    The true lesson of The Go-Giver is not so much that material reward follows an expansive spirit, but that one’s daily pleasure increases with the size of one’s own heart. After all, when financial success eludes us – or crashes with the national economy – what we have to rely upon is not numbers on a ledger sheet, but the family, friends and neighbors who will see us through. If we give authentically without expectation of reward – because we “love to . . . as a way of life” – what we will reap is a life richly lived even if we do not thereby “get rich” in the process.

    [1]  As the Labor Department tells us, in the year 2000, “high school dropouts were more than twice as likely as high school graduates to be counted among the 31 million American “working poor” while only 1.4% of that number possessed college degrees. See A Profile of the Working Poor – 2000, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics at http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2000.htm. One’s existing occupation – the job we have been lucky or well-placed enough to be trained to do -- is also highly correlated with financial success or failure. As the Labor Department reports, “[a]lmost 31 percent of the poor who worked during the year [2000] were employed in [low skill] service occupations . . . .,” including “[p]rivate household workers, a subset of service workers that is made up largely of women, were the most likely to be in poverty (20 percent)”. On the other hand, those engaged in executive, administrative, managerial and professional occupations had low incidences of poverty since “[h]igh earning and full-time employment are typical in these occupations.” 

    [2] For a fascinating study of way in which social networks have benefited some and excluded others, including women and minorities, see University of Colorado History Professor Pamela Walker Laird’s book, Pull, Networking and Success Since Benjamin Franklin.


    The Benefits of Being Candid with the Mediator: A Guest Post by Attorney Gregory Nerland

    This is a guest post by litigator and mediator of Gregory Nerland of Akawie & LaPietra in Walnut Creek, California.  You can follow Nerland on Twitter here.  The photo is from Twitter - hence its casual nature.

    I reviewed with some dismay the July 12, 2009, post titled Mediators' Proposals: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly, which seemed to endorse counsel who deceive the mediator to push the negotiations to a mediator’s proposal./*  I primarily litigate, but I devote a small percentage of my practice to serving as a mediator. 

    A mediator’s proposal can be a very effective tool for mediators and the parties to promote settlement when the negotiations have honestly and appropriately reached an impasse.  The chance of the proposal generating a settlement, however, will increase greatly if the parties and attorneys respect the mediator and his or her opinion.

    If the parties and attorneys respect the mediator, then they will respect the proposal, making it more likely that they will accept the proposal.  Without respect, there is nothing more than a gambler’s hope that the proposal will be in an acceptable range.  Further, if the lack of respect is mutual, then there is a risk that the mediator will subconsciously tilt the proposal in favor of the other side, which certainly will not promote settlement.

    Every mediation has some elements of a game, but while the gamesmanship can involve concealment and even some sleight of hand, it should not devolve into deception.  One example that has worked well where there is complete trust and respect between the mediator and at least one side is for that side to divulge the final offer near the outset of the session with the understanding that the mediator will have some latitude to dole out the total authority in bits and pieces with the hope of settling at or near that final number. 

    This is deceptive because the mediator is telling the other side that obtaining each “concession” is a hard fought battle, but it eliminates the risk of moving too quickly to the end game against an opponent who does not care what the opening number might be, but only wants to halve it (or double it) before the end of the day.  This is deceptive because each private session with the side who divulged his or her final number creates an opportunity to discuss future vacations and how the kids are doing.  If, however, the goal is to reach a settlement that works for all concerned and gives all parties a sense of accomplishment, then it is a fine tactic that promotes efficient negotiations, likely avoids altogether the need for a mediator’s proposal, and minimizes the fees of the attorneys and the mediator.

    Candor and respect towards a mediator has an additional benefit that may not be of advantage to the immediate clients, but will promote productive future mediations on other matters.  If I can tell my client that a particular mediator is good, that I respect that person, and will seriously consider everything that that person says, then the client is more likely to listen to what could be bad news about the case.  This level of respect is rarely earned in the first session with a new mediator, but only after several mediations.  Without candor and respect, the attorneys and parties just want to “win” without realizing that the cost of “victory” may be dearer than the settlement obtained through a positive and respectful mediation.


    *  Editor's comment:  I did not mean to endorse duplicity on the part of counsel or the gaming of a mediator for the purpose of obtaining a favorable mediation proposal.  I only meant to emphasize the fact that many attorneys can and do "game" the system, including as much manipulation of the mediator herself in the process.

    --    Gregory Nerland
        Akawie & LaPietra
        1981 N. Broadway, #320
        Walnut Creek, CA  94596

    Negotiating Earn Out Provisions in M&A Transactions

    Via twitter this morning just in case the powers that be at manatt are still wondering whether it's worthwhile to have a twitter account.

    David Grinberg to Discuss the Negotiation of Earnout Provisions in M&A Deals

    Manatt partner David Grinberg will discuss the negotiation of earnout provisions in M&A deals during a live webinar hosted by Strafford on July 14, 2009 from 1:00-2:30 Eastern.  Grinberg will explain the types deals for which earnouts are appropriate and provide strategies for negotiating and structuring earnout provisions to reduce post-closing disputes.  Grinberg will specifically address: 

    • When are earnout provisions an attractive financing option for M&A deals?
    • What strategies have been effective for negotiating performance benchmarks in deals involving earnout provisions?
    • What post-closing concerns should buyers and sellers anticipate and address during deal negotiations?
    • What are the key tax issues to understand and consider when using earnouts?

     To register for this webinar, please click here.

    Mediators' Proposals: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly

    At the close of the year, our good friend John DeGroote at Settlement Perspectives asked whether mediators' proposals had lost their utility.  Now that parties "know the mediator's proposal is coming," he wrote,

    savvy negotiators angle for an advantageous impasse rather than a settlement. Compromise is no longer the goal of the mediation exercise; instead it becomes a play to the “neutral,” whose power to craft the mediation proposal will make her the real decisionmaker:

    • In cases where the mediator’s proposal will be based on who will pay what, the parties — or worse yet, one party — will spend valuable time and effort constructing an impasse when, in the absence of a mediator’s proposal as a fallback, he might have actually achieved a compromise settlement; or

    • In cases where the mediator’s proposal will be based on the value of the case, no one has an incentive to be candid with the mediator — so positions become more important than interests; or

    • In cases where the parties aren’t sure what will drive the mediator’s proposal, they dig into their positions and hope for impasse — with the most likely result being a mediator’s proposal predicated on those positions.

    Just yesterday, a prominent local IP litigator, trial lawyer and deal-maker Robert J. Rose of Sheldon Mak Rose & Anderson graced the IP ADR Blog with a guest post on the utility of mediators' proposals here.  As Rose notes:

    A reluctant plaintiff will make a large jump if the money is really “on the table.”  Defendants will come up with money they otherwise deny having, if it means that the case is really over.  It also eliminates reactive devaluation.

    For those who skipped social psychology in college, reactive devaluation is what every lawyer is taught in the first year of practice, if not earlier.  "If the other side wants it," said my first mentor, "you don't, even if it seems like a good idea to you."  With that admonition ringing in the ears of every litigator, the need for mediators is obvious.  Given the dangers cited by DeGroote, however, the mediator's proposal may now be simply another way to "game" the mediator. 

    I have two short stories to illustrate the reason I re-direct the parties to bracketing when they ask me to make a mediator's proposal. But first, let me explain that I am one of those mediators who used my "proposal" option to put a number on the table I thought both parties would accept even though it would be a stretch for both of them.  I usually tested these assumptions in separate caucuses by asking each side "if they came down to $X would you come up to $Y."  When the numbers didn't overlap, I'd gauge how much pain there might be for both parties to bridge the gap, along with other entirely subjective opinions such as:

    • how invested each side was in walking away with a settlement that day
    • how firm each side was in their assertion that they would not go below or above a certain number
    • whether either attorney needed help in bringing a little more reality to their clients before the parties would be ready to accept a proposal by the mediator; and,
    • how much "street cred" I'd developed with the parties personally so that they'd accept my estimate of the settlement price-point even if they wouldn't accept their own attorney's advice /*

    The first time I felt manipulated into making a mediator's proposal that wasn't the best both parties could do occurred at the close of a particularly fractious commercial mediation. In the presumed Zone of Potential Agreement , my proposal was high on the side of the Plaintiff because I felt that the defendant had more "give" than did Plaintiff's counsel. 

    I made my proposal and both sides accepted.  When I walked into the defense caucus to tell counsel that he had a deal, however, I was met with a burst of laughter, the clapping of hands and the following statement:  "I was prepared to take less; that's a great deal.  Thanks so much."

    Everyone Lies to the Mediator

    That was the hardest lesson I'd had to date in the truism that EVERYONE lies to the mediator.  You do not get to lie to the mediator twice, however, so I caution anyone who's feeling that she put one over on the mediator either to keep it to herself or never to hire that mediator again.

    Still, I took a lesson from the attorney's merriment.  I realized immediately that he was not the only, nor the first, attorney to manipulate me.   He was simply the only one to let me know it.  I don't like being manipulated.  But that's what litigators are trained to do.  We call it "persuasion."  Still, I didn't like the look of my mediator's finger prints on that settlement, one that now appeared unduly influenced by my credulity.  

    So that's reason no. 1 -- an extremely strong reason no. 1 - why I don't' like to make mediator's proposals and why counsel might ask themselves whether they want to continue asking for them.

    "If We'd Wanted a Third Party to Decide, We Would Have Arbitrated This Case"

    The quote above is from an attorney who represented one of the parties in the largest and most sophisticated commercial case I've mediated to date. We were at the end of day two and the parties -- who had traveled great distances to meet in a neutral city -- were nowhere near a landing point.  I was a sufficiently experienced mediator to land the case, but new enough to feel as if I'd run out of options when I suggested making a mediator's proposal.  

    "I didn't hire you to have a third party make my decision for me," said counsel.  "If you want to get the parties closer together, why don't you suggest a bracket?" (for a explanation of bracketing, see my colleague Ralph Williams' article Introducing Deal Points - the Basics.)

    I'd used brackets as a means of testing the parties' true distance before that day ("if he went to $X would you come down to $Y?") but I'd never made a mediator's proposal that was a bracket, i.e., "I suggest that the defendant put $X on the table if plaintiff will reduce its demand to $Y."

    Although we didn't settle the case that day with a bracket (it took four full months of follow-up telephone negotiations to do that) I took counsel's point to heart.  The parties don't hire me to make a decision for them.  They're much happier when they get to make the decision themselves.  Even though the parties do decide whether to accept the mediator's proposal, it hasn't come to them as the result of their own hard work.  That being the case, the agreement reached is far less durable (subject to failure based upon nit-picking deal points after the agreement has been reached in principle) and far less satisfying than one achieved without the mediator's thumb on the scale.

    I decided to stop making mediators' proposals more than two years ago.  In all that time, however, I've never refused to make one.  Rather, I've suggested alternative ways of achieving resolution, at least one of more of which settled the case in every case where the parties asked for a mediator's proposal.  

    I'd like to hear thoughts on these points -- manipulation and party satisfaction -- from my litigator readers as well as my mediator readers.

    More mediator thoughts on mediator proposals here:  The Mediator's Proposal at Mediation Meditations.


    *  I say this with the following caveat:  I would never attempt to influence clients to do something other than what their attorneys advise.  From time to time, however, the attorney needs to make the mediator the "bad cop" in the negotiation so that the client will not feel as if the attorney is no longer fighting for his interests.  I only play "bad cop" with the attorney's advice and consent.  My job is to get the settlement concluded making the attorneys look good, not bad.

    Deal or No Deal: Improving the Odds of Successful Mediation

    Need CLE Credits? Mark your calendars!

    The American Bar Association Section of Litigation will hold a live teleconference and webcast on July 14, 2009 titled “Deal or No Deal: Improving the Odds of Successful Mediation.” Reinsurance and Insurance expert Katherine Billingham from KB ReSolutions, Inc. and Randall Kiser from DecisionSet will present at the event. Randall’s article Lets Not Make a Deal: An Empirical Study of Decision Making in Unsuccessful Settlement Negotiations was featured recently in the New York Times.

    Donald R. Philbin, Jr., friend of this blog and adjunct professor at Pepperdine’s Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution will also speak at the event. Here are two excellent  papers written by Don:  The One Minute Manager Prepares for Mediation: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Negotiation Preparation published in the Harvard Negotiation Law Review and  Deal or No Deal? or Perhaps a Better Deal? The Impact of Improved Information published by CPR.

    Find out more about the event here.

    Negotiating from a Position of Weakness Hollywood Style

    When last we left Ari and Terrence negotiating Ari's compensation Terrence had ceremoniously offered Ari "NOTHING!!!"

    But we're not talking only money here.  We're talking power and agency in the psychological sense, i.e., agency as the capacity to control one's own future.  Before the "nothing!!!" offer, Ari had told his wife he was still "afraid" of Terrence even as she attempted to prop him up by reminding him that he was Terrence's partner now.  Although Ari wants control of the agency,  his strength falters when Terrence comes back from a seven-year sabbatical. 

    Ari's discomfort in the scene below is palpable.  Terrence asserts his authority ("I hope you're not planning to expense the Bat Mitzvah to the agency"); implies that Terrence's daughter had better instincts for talent at eight years old than Ari has now; and, previews his plan to take over Ari's five-year relationship with the talent of the hour -- Vincent Chase. 

    Ari is dealing from a position of psychological if not actual weakness.  Having Terrence back on the scene is a little like going back home for the holidays after a few years at college.  You feel independent but it takes only a few minutes with your parents to revert to your powerless teenage self.  The final blow to Ari's self-esteem below is delivered in the form of a "gift."  $50,000 for Ari's daughter's Bat Mitzvah.  Ari is fifteen years old again.

    Sensing Ari's weakness, Terrence moves to consolidate his power by taking over a staff meeting from which he excludes Ari.  But Terrence has over-played his hand.  Using Terrence's violation of the agency's folkways ("you embarrassed me in front of my troops") Ari pries an apology out of him and wins his first battle over who can summon the other's attendence by fiat.   

    When Ari returns to the negotiations, he has re-set the bargaining table in a way Lax and Sebenius in 3-D Negotiation would applaud.  The subject of the negotiation is no longer Ari's share of the profits, but the value of the company itself and Ari's share in it.  Note how Ari takes credit for the lion's share of the company's present value and emphasizes the company's vulnerability if Ari leaves.

    The deal is sealed but the check unwritten and Terrence has no intention of fulfilling his promise when he learns that Ari intends to open his own agency, (tortiously) raiding Terrence's shop of its agents and clients. In a remarkable power play, Terrence brings together the "five families" Hollywood, to threaten Ari with ruin if he so much as offers CAA's mail room boy a paid position. Quick on his feet, Ari accuses Terrence of anti-Semitism (making Terrence the member of an "out group") and then promises not to touch any agency's clients other than Terrence's.

    With no money to open his new agency, Terrence's agents are not inclined to follow Ari until an unlikely partner offers to fund his venture, below.

    As Lax and Sebenius instruct:

    3-D Negotiation involves not one, but three dimensions, all of which are in play more or less concurrently throughout an[y] effective negotiation[:]  1. Tactics  2. Deal design 3. Setup.

    Deal designs, say the authors, create lasting value.

    Smart people working at the drawing board can . . . discover hidden sources of economic and noneconomic value, then craft agreements -- design deals -- that unlock that value of the parties involved.

    In the Entourage negotiation, Ari unlocks his own value when he finds the courage to leave the safety of Terrence's agency and open his own.  By episode's end, Ari has changed the players, the subject matter of the negotiation and the balance of power in town.  This is 3-D negotiation at its finest (even though it also rolls out at its most shameless).

    All of that said, don't miss the opportunity to appreciate Ari's "at the table tactics" in negotiating the sale of his interest to Terrence.  He enters the room confidently, refuses to permit Terrence to use his old power plays ("save a tree; say it out loud"); re-anchors Terrence's $4 million open with "my counter is $#@$ you"; explains his own value; diminishes any claim Terrence might have to the present value of the agency; signals his firm willingness to walk away; and, demonstrates his commitment to stay away in the absence of a realistic offer ("I have a rich wife who loves to spoil me").  The power shifts and the deal is done in two minutes flat.

    Yes, it's Hollywood.  But all good fiction, which Entourage certainly is, rests on hard facts, all of which are brought vividly to life here.

    The Insulting Opening Offer

    Does it ever serve a purpose?

    One extremely good answer to the question whether an insulting first offer ever has a purpose can be found at Steve Mehta's Mediation Matters Blog Taking Escalates More than Giving.

    In this example from Entourage, Terrence's insult is reciprocated by Ari in conflict escalation (as Steve predicts) and Ari's eventual victory as demonstrated by my longer post about this episode, Negotiation from a Position of Weakness, Hollywood-Style.

    Negotiating Cooperation

    Who ME? Manipulate? Negotiating Impartiality in Mediation

    I was reading a great article in the New York Times this morning about "blue sky" transparent diplomacy in light of Obama's Cairo speech and was intrigued by the phrase "constructive ambiguity" in international diplomacy.

    The full Obama-Cairo Speech below:

    Check out Experts Say Full Disclosure May Not Always Be Best Tactic in Diplomacy.  While citing the importance of back channel communications, the author quotes "one of the nation's most experienced career diplomats and former under secretary of state"  as identifying the two "home truths" in international diplomacy:

    One is, don’t tell lies. The other is, you can say more in private than you can in public, but they have to be consistent.

    This brought to mind not simply the one or two memorable instances in which I caught mediators in deception during my litigation practice, but a recent experience communicated to me by a friend about one of those $15/K a day mediators.  I ask for the full 411 on these mediations because I'm intrigued by the value $15K/day buys.  Here's the story.

    My friend called me during a recent mediation to tell me that his mediator had just left the room after leaving this message with his "team."

    Your opponents just asked me to make a mediator's proposal of $X.Y million.

    Assuming that this disclosure was not a breach of confidence, I had to ask myself whether it was simply a (manipulative) hypothetical "offer" approved by the other side in form and content that the other side could safely disown.  In either case, I felt it was (a) unethical - i.e., a breach of confidence; or, (b) partial (not neutral, which is also unethical).

    Someone could likely talk me down off the ledge on this one but I'm having trouble seeing it as permissible mediator behavior.   Assuming it wasn't a breach of confidence, it raises the question whose ox is being gored here?  How much manipulation by the mediator is acceptable - is ANY manipulation acceptable and if the mediator is manipulating, is it POSSIBLE for him/her to do so without also being PARTIAL?

    I have "caught" mediators in deception during my practice (and have not been quiet about my experience).  In case mediators do not recall legal practice, let me remind them that counsel talk to one another and despite our differences usually trust one another more than we trust our mediator.  If you lie to one of us or disclose something you shouldn't be disclosing, don't let the separate caucuses in which the mediation is taking place mislead you about the state of "play" in the litigation.  If the mediator is dishonest, will be found out.

    If we do not hold ourselves to the absolute HIGHEST POSSIBLE ethical standards, our credibility, and our careers, are seriously at risk.

    Would any of my fellow mediate.com bloggers like to weigh in on this?  Geoff Sharp, Jeff Thompson, Phyllis Pollack, Stephanie West Allen, Nancy Hudgins, Colin Rule, Tammy Lenski, Josh Weiss, Jan Frankel Schau, Jeff Krivis, Mariam Zadeh, John DeGroote, Steve Mehta, Arnold Zeman?

    Six Ways to Insure Your Construction Mediation Fails at Construction Law Musings

    How smart is Chris Hill at Construction Law Musings to have a guest blogger every Friday?  That's just the kind of collaborative problem-solving you need in your litigation counsel, particularly when you're facing multi-party construction litigation.  This week, Chris was kind enough to ask me to add to the construction law conversation taking place every day at his tremendously useful, entertaining and enlightening blog.  Excerpt from Six Ways to Insure Your Construction Mediation Will Fail below.

    1. Leave the Decision-Makers at Home

    A mediation – particularly a multi-party construction mediation – is more drama than law; more character than rights; and more emotion than reason. Mediation, like trial, requires the lawyers to restore the texture, dimensionality, morality and personality back into the dispute that we lawyers flatten for the purpose of satisfying the law’s requirement that we litigate only the “relevant” facts necessary to satisfy legal “forms of action.”

    On game day, it’s not the mediator, but the parties themselves who must decide who is bluffing and who is not; what allocation of responsibility among the parties feels fair; whose claims of poverty or freedom from liability have the ring of truth; and, which parties have deeper pockets or greater negotiation flexibility than their attorneys have claimed.

    Just as you wouldn’t want your jury to “call in” their verdict, you don’t want the mediation decision-makers miles away from the mediation table when the cards are being played. Remember that people seek out lawyers only when they feel they have suffered an injustice. Righting that wrong requires more than money or dismissal. It requires the belief that you, the attorney, have gotten your client the very best deal possible in light of the facts finally revealed, the personalities involved and the hard realities faced.

    2. Leave Early Because the Other Parties are Acting in Bad Faith

    Continue reading here.

    Michael Webster Encourages Franchisees to Attend Harvard's Program on Negotiation

    Check out franchise law blogger Michael Webster's post at Blue Mau Mau on the Harvard Program here.  Excerpt below. 

    How do we know that people are bad negotiators? For more than 30 years, theorists have been devising little bargaining puzzles. In these very simple problems, people routinely leave money on the table. Routinely fail to make the best possible deal.

    Why? There are many types of answers, and my expertise is looking at how people failed to manage the process of both expanding the pie, creating value, and demanding their fair share of the pie, claiming value because they failed to comprehend their strategic position.

    The process of managing or mismanaging the creating/claiming value process has been extensively studied, starting in the 60's with Walton and McKersie's A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations.

    One explanation of why people are bad negotiators, something Bob Mnookin stresses, is that people often look past their interests in common and go directly to undue focus on adverse interests.

    We have all heard the term "win win", but what does it really mean? Bob Mnookin talks about the Program on Negotiation, an executive training program at Harvard.



    Negotiating Employment: A 12-Step Plan

    This article (Relationships are Key in Job Searches) flogging this book (Whacked Again! Secrets to Getting Back in the Executive Saddle) landed in my email box from law.com this morning.

    I have to say that I agree with magazine mogul Tina Brown that we're in a "gig economy" not a job economy.  What does that mean?  It means doing an inventory of your dreams right next to a realistic assessment of your skills, along with a time line for getting your own business up and running, with or without investors, remembering that in a "gig economy" barter is a perfectly acceptable alternative to cash and in the age of the internet (Networking Wisdom in Mentoring Circles) hundreds of marketing tools that can reach millions of people globally and thousands of people locally, are right beneath your fingers on the keyboard connected to the computer that brings you the most exciting set of opportunities since we decided to send men to the moon -- social networking (now there's a proper run-on sentence, the reward for which is buying myself a new copy of Elements of Style which every job-seeker and new entrepreneur should do post-haste since written communication is the key to successful online business development). 

    That said, for those who NEED A JOB RIGHT NOW to pay off their law school loans (remembering that dischargable or not, we no longer have debtors' prisons), here's today's Law.com advice:

    The book gives a 12-step plan for landing a new job: 1. finding passion and creating vision; 2. creating a brand; 3. creating a value proposition; 4. creating stories; 5. developing a marketing plan; 6. getting a message out; 7. creating a marketing document; 8. meeting the friend's friend; 9. power résumé; 10. preparing for an interview; 11. negotiating terms; 12. landing the job; and the next step.

    The book emphasizes the importance of keeping up contacts after landing in a new job -- knowing that another may search may be ahead. But it suggests maintaining contacts by looking for ways to help other people with a "pay-it-forward" approach. "We all need help at some point," the book says. "The concept is that you are thankful for those who helped you in the past."

    Villwock told the group that in his experience, the most successful CEOs and other professionals are those who are most passionate about their work. "When they stop having fun, that's when they stop and go on to the next job," he said.

    He also advised the group that attitude and personal skills are as important as professional credentials. From observing executives, he said, "half their success has nothing to do with performance on the job. It has everything to do with ability to sell themselves and build trusted relationships."

    If you substitute business plan for power résumé and starting the business for landing the job, you've got a perfectly great recipe for engaging the gig economy eagerly awaiting your contribution.  Listen up!  You didn't get the highest PSAT and SAT scores, graduate cum, magna or summa, ace the LSAT, study your $#@% off, learn lawyering skills, conquer your fear and pass the bar exam to be hat in hand looking to be someone's apprentice galley slave. 

    Think about it and join the rest of the gig economy. 

    We're looking forward to your unique and valuable contributions to the new economy right now!

    The writing on the inside of the secret entrepreneurial decoder ring?  MONETIZE EVERYTHING!


    Mediation without the Hammer of Litigation?

    Worth reading from last week's Mediator blah blah blog (the Lord Chief Justice arms himself with a hammer); just in case you missed it or didn't download the .pdf as I just did this morning.  Thanks Geoff!

    Let us take a blank sheet of paper and imagine that we are trying to create a system which would provide a satisfactory means of resolving civil disputes, bearing in mind, without being over dramatic, that in the end, it becomes almost inevitable that some civil disputes will end up in criminal activity. I do not think I am exaggerating.

    A few years ago I was taught a lesson by a very intelligent young woman in one of our County Courts. We were talking of the cost – the exorbitant cost as it was then - of taking proceedings for very small sums of money. She explained to me that the cost of just starting the proceedings would represent her children’s shoes – she thought this a disproportionate cost. She knew areas of the City where her husband could go and find someone who would throw a few bricks through a window for £50 – no doubt she was right. And, perhaps, that would be more effective, she suggested than a judgment and getting back the compensation. A little self-help could end up with a brick being used against an individual and a few bricks being thrown back in return.

    In short, a civilised community has to provide a system which means that those in dispute can refer to an independent tribunal for a decision. It is a further requirement that the system should actually exist and be capable of being used. If court fees are disproportionate or if legal fees are disproportionate the system is not open to those who cannot afford its processes.

    My experience in practice at the bar was that some of my clients wanted their disputes sorted out. They had tried to sort them out before they got to the stage of seeing a solicitor and going to counsel. Others of my clients, or should I say, it was always my opponent’s clients who were unreasonable, didn’t want to sort the dispute out at all. There were all sorts of reasons. One is that very human characteristic sometimes but not always an attribute, the indomitable bloody mindedness of the bull dog.

    So that on your sheet of paper the system which we are creating has to cater for both those who wish to settle and those who do not. If both sides want to sort out their dispute, and they have tried and failed, being sensible people, their next step would not be to come to lawyers, but to go and ask someone they trust to try and sort out their dispute, to see where there are points of disagreement and points of agreement. Let’s give it a name. Why not call it “mediation”? A successful mediation is a wonderful outcome. But with the best will in the world, it may not always happen. So you have to have a formal system.

    You also have to have a formal system when one side or other to the dispute simply has no intention of sorting it out save in court and at the end of a protracted and expensive court proceeding. That is more troublesome. That may be the party with pots of money trying to squeeze the party with modest means away from the court process. That may mean that the party with real merit in his or her case is deprived of the proceeds of litigation for many years to the advantage of the intransigent party. It may be that the intransigent party is entirely justified and believes that there is no form of mediation which would be acceptable either to it or indeed in the end to the other side.

    Now time and time again, in practice as a barrister and now as a judge, I have been perfectly well aware that if only the parties had come together at an early stage, long before they saw their counsel, long before they got to the door of the court, they could have resolved their dispute at a fraction of the cost and without the emotional expenditure and commitment of time and energy required by the litigation. One of the ways I used to try to persuade clients to settle was to remind them of a Chinese curse – “may you be involved in a litigation in which you are in the right.”

    One vivid memory is a boundary dispute, or rather a dispute over a garden. My opponent and I turned up at the County Court armed with an abundance of authorities because we had to address limitation periods, laches, injunctive relief, indeed just about every facet of civil justice. In the end we negotiated a settlement in which he and I, not the judge, went to the land and armed not with books but with hammers and stakes literally pegged out the property into equal halves. The case was settled. In truth my opponent and I had acted as mediators. How much better for everyone if the mediation had happened much earlier.

    Can we just take a long term view? Every few years, or about every ten years, there is a great hullabaloo about the cost of civil litigation. Arbitration, after all, is a system of avoiding the court process. Do you remember when employment tribunals began? These were to be informal meetings at which the opposing parties would put their cases to a tribunal, almost a form of palm tree justice.

    Consider now how much more complicated and expensive the processes have become.
    I do urge the Council to recognise this danger. The mediation process, could, unless danger is recognised and addressed, particularly if it is part of the court process, may eventually, and quite unintentionally, and by unforeseen accretion become increasingly formalised and procedural. It really must not eventually become just one more part of the expensive process that all of us are trying to avoid.

    Negotiating with Difficult People for Lawyers

    Structured Settlement Traps for the Unwary

    I would not ordinarily post a power point presentation that is someone else's marketing vehicle.  Nor would I generally post a power point that is meant solely for the benefit of one side of any dispute (here, plaintiffs' personal injury attorneys).  I read though the entire lengthy presentation, however, and thought it contained some good tips over a broad range of issues that could well be useful to attorneys, clients and mediators in settling personal injury litigation involving the use of structured financial products.  So with all disclaimers considered given (not my opinions; don't vouch for accuracy, etc.) I uploaded the below presentation for anyone who might find it a useful jumping off point in this complex arena (i.e., it invovles arithmetic if not actually mathematics!)


    HOW You Negotiate More Important than WHAT You Negotiate

    Check out Steve Mehta's recent post at Mediation Matters -- Negotiations Today Could Haunt You Tomorrow, once again confirming that the human interaction during the negotiation is more important to long term satisfaction with the deal than the raw economic benefit achieved.  As Mehta explains, a recent study reported Curhan, J., Elfenbein, H., Kilduff, G. Getting Off on the Right Foot: Subjective Value Versus Economic Value in Predicting Longitudial Job Outcomes From Job Offer Negotiations in the Journal of Applied Pyschology, 2009, V. 94, No. 2, 524-534 (.pdf)

    found that the satisfaction with the experience the employees had during their job offer negotiations significantly predicted compensation satisfaction, job satisfaction, and turnover intention one year later.  By contrast, the actual economic value – meaning the value of the compensation package — achieved in the negotiation had no association with job attitudes or intentions to leave.

    Interests In Employment Litigation

    Just as the quality of the pre-employment relationship colors the entire workplace experience, so will a negative termination color the employee's retrospective view of the employment experience, thereby increasing the incidence of litigation.


    Hey Justice Logic: Don't Go Around EMPATHIZING

    Check out Balkinization's Why is Empathy Controversial?  or Liberal, an excellent analysis of empathic wisdom (and blind spots) on the Bench in the wake of a noted Republican's vow  to filibuster any Supreme Court nominee who might commit the (liberal?) sin of empathizing from the Bench.

    Emotion terms are notoriously slippery. But if we understand empathy as the ability to take the perspective of another, it ought to be uncontroversial that empathy is an important component of judicial judgment. Empathy, so understood, is a basic and necessary tool for making sense of the intentions and actions of others.

    So, as Mark Graber asks, who could be against empathy? And more particularly, why is empathy liberal, if we all use it? Perhaps because empathy goes by another name when it comes easily—for example, when Supreme Court justices take the perspective of those from similar backgrounds or with similar worldviews. This sort of empathy looks neutral and natural, not ideological or partial. It tends to be portrayed as garden-variety judicial reasoning.

    We all use empathy, and despite our best intentions, it is always selective and riddled with blind spots. We can try to correct for this partiality if we are self-aware. But those who study cognitive psychology and decision-making find that we aren’t all that good at identifying and critiquing our own background assumptions. A better way to encourage this sort of correction is through debate with others who hold differing viewpoints. Judges, like the rest of us, make better decisions when forced to examine and articulate their premises.

    Read on here.

    According to a recent article in the New Yorker (voice of the effete empathizing liberal east-coast establishment) we owe our conscious mind -- that which makes us human -- to the mirror neurons that give rise to to empathy (because we could "feel" the mind of another, at some point we turned that thought back against ourselves and consciousness was born).

    And let's not forget that some brain researchers believe it is impossible to make any choices whatsoever in the absence of emotion (the "pure" logical mind will make endless pro and con lists absent the "gut" response that finally permits us to decide).

    What does this have to do with negotiation?  Anyone who continues to believe that decisions are (or could potentially be) the product of a solely rational process are losing the benefit of the emotional sway every great negotiator exercises over his or her bargaining partner.

    Geesh, even George Bush professed compassion (so long as the government wasn't providing it).  Does the Republican Party really wish to become the home of Darth Vadar? /1


    1/  Perhaps Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's The Daily Show described coverage of the pairing best. The show aired a clip of The Weekly Standard's William Kristol saying of the back-to-back speeches, "Just going to be fun, don't you think? Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader, you know? And I want to say that I was always on Darth Vader's side." Stewart retorted, "Now you tell us. You know, as one of the main intellectual forces behind the Iraq war, that's kind of a weird thing to admit. You might have wanted to mention, 'Oh, quick caveat to my plan on a new American century: I'm on the Darth Vader side.' "

    From "Fear of Closing Gitmo" at the Daily Kos

    Negotiation Training Now!!

    Negotiating the Recession with a Legal Mutual Aid Society

    If you're worried about your law job becoming -- as they say in Britain - "redundant" or if you've already been laid off due to the recession, join Lawyer Connection which was born today as the result of a twitter conversation I had with Gwynne Monahan (who you can follow @econwriter).

    Here's an exploration of what a mutual aid group is from the viewpoint of a social worker -- which speaks to me because I lived through my first husband's MSW in Social Work studies before he lived through my Law School experience (an eventual relationship-killer). 

    Visit Lawyer Connection

    From Andrew Cicchetti's Mutual Aid Based Group Work blog:

    Mutual aid as group work technology can be understood as an exchange of help wherein the group member is both the provider as well as the recipient of help in service of achieving common group and individual goals (Borkman, 1999; Gitterman, 2006; Lieberman, 1983; Northen & Kurland, 2001; Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 2006, Steinberg, 2004; Toseland & Siporin, 1986). The rationale for cultivating mutual aid in the group encounter is premised on mutual aid's resonance with humanistic values (Glassman, 2002) and the following propositions: 1) members have strengths, opinions, perspectives, information, and experiences that can be drawn upon to help others in the group; 2) helping others helps the helper, a concept known as the helper-therapy principle (Reissman, 1965) which has been empirically validated (Roberts et al, 1999); and 3) some types of help, such as confrontation, are better received when emanating from a peer rather than the worker (Shulman, 2006). Mutual aid transactions that occur amongst and between members stimulate cognitive and behavioral processes and yield therapeutic, supportive and empowering benefits for the members (Breton, 1990;Northen & Kurland, 2001; Shulman, 1986, 2006).

    Obviously, we're not pursuing the therapeutic benefits of a mutual aid society as social worker Cicchetti is.  Having been a member of such a group (a community-based women's credit union in the early 1970's for instance) I can say that the experience is not only economically, but also personally, enriching.

    Let's not wait for the economy to improve.  Let's start improving it TODAY.  We are the change we want to see in the world. 

    JOIN US!!

    Conflict is Inevitable, Combat Optional from Justin Patten at Human Law

    British mediator and blogger Justin Patten (Human Law) has a terrific piece in his ezine today entitled Conflict is inevitable, combat is optional – how to negotiate without falling out.  Justin responds with sympathy to a recent survey calling his fellow Brits "the angriest nation in Europe," noting that the

    wave of redundancies sweeping across the nation is forcing a number of employers, employees and their advisors such as lawyers and trade unions into conflict situation. As customers become slower and slower at paying added pressure is created for their suppliers and relationships become strained.

    Because the "approach taken by those involved and their attitude in dealing with the conflict will have a significant impact on the outcome and the costs involved in finding a solution," Justin provides the following easy to implement solutions:

    1 Avoid macho posturing – In an attempt to hide the weakness of their position some people are all bluff and bluster in conflict situations. . . . . (more)

    2 De-personalise problems – My experience of disputes is that often things can happen due to personal issues between the individuals. It can be difficult to take the personalities out of a matter but believe me there are clear benefits. . . . (more

    3 Focus on your own emotions – In many work environments there are unwritten rules that emotions are not to be expressed. Is this really wise?  . . . (more)

    4 Listen – Effective communication starts with the speaker taking responsibility for understanding the language, perspective and experiences of the listener. . . . (more)

    5 Analyse the Conflict – Research on problem solving indicates that the effectiveness of solutions increases significantly once the real problem is identified. . . . (more)

    Justin Patten handles conflict for a living and whilst as a litigation solicitor he is familiar with the combat zone of the court room he much prefers to work with clients to achieve mediated solutions through negotiation and agreement. Contact Justin on 0844 800 3249 or email Justin here.

    Further reading:

    Negotiating for Excellent Results

    Human Law Mediation has just published a new White Paper – Negotiating for Excellent Results – which contains advice and tips on how to negotiate with power and persuasion in conflict situations. You can download a PDF version of the White Paper here.

    Keeping Away from Court Room Battles and Employment Tribunals

    A White Paper with advice on How to save money, maintain business relationships and avoid negative publicity by embracing the power of mediation to resolve business and employee disputes. Download the PDF here.

    You can subscribe to Justin's invaluable eZine here.

    Dealing with "Jerks" - Tit for Tat in an Email World

    I'm re-posting below an article published in both the Los Angeles and the San Francisco Daily Journals (the local legal rags) about the dangers inherent in email communication.  I do so because I had several complaints about the use of abusive email by in-house counsel last week at my negotiation training as well as in my twitter network from attorneys exasperated with combative emailers who refuse to take telephone calls (see post about conflict avoidance here)

    My advice?  Use the tried and true tit-for-tat strategy:  retaliate for uncooperative conduct and be quick to forgive as soon as your bargaining partners bring themselves back into line.  The advice I gave on twitter (@vpynchon) this morning was simple and pointed:  tell opposing counsel that you will program your email system to automatically delete all of their emails until they pick up the telephone and give you the courtesy of a return call.

    Below, my Daily Journal article on the Dangers of Using Email During Litigation.


    This story occurs in the spring of 2001, in a hotel room in Toronto, at 3 a.m., the morning of a deposition I've been preparing to take of an aging petrochemical engineer.

    2001 is a  year I'd dreamed of since elementary school.  But the technological changes predicted in the science fiction of my childhood and adolescence are nothing like the "hi-tech" I'm living with now.  

    There are no one-man jets cruising the skies; no robots running my errands or cooking my dinner; no tele-transportation; and, on the political scene (it's not yet 9/11) no Big Brother

    My personal 2001 "future" is mostly about my instantaneous access to information and "real time" communication via the "killer app" -- email -- telegraphic, spontaneous, unnuanced, and about to get me in a great deal of trouble.  (See Vanity Fair's must-read oral history of the internet here.)  

    There's an associate back in Los Angeles, you see, the quality of whose work and the strength of whose dedication to the case at hand is in alarming decline.  More troubling, his work is deteriorating at the same time I'm taking old fashioned passenger jets from province to province to take the testimony of as many witnesses still living who know how 500+ toxic waste sites got that way in the first place.    

    Did I say it's 3 a.m.?  The associate I'm thinking about failed to get me the outline I need for tomorrow's deposition on time -- or at all.  The "hard copies" that were supposed to be waiting for me when I arrived at the hotel have gone missing.  I'm tired.  I'm hungry.  I'm lonely.  And I'm angry. 

    Worst of all, I'm composing an email to my  associate about my considerable disappointment in his recent performance.  There is a moment, a split second, in which my finger hovers over the "send" button while a rational voice in my head says "no."  Then I push "send."

    Email Makes Settlement More Difficult  

    More and more often when I'm meeting counsel on the morning of a mediation, they're also meeting one another for the first time.  In fact, they often have not even previously spoken to one another unless they've met in Court ("good morning, counsel") or in depositions (eyes averted; objections made).  Increasingly, by far the vast percentage of their communications have taken place via email.  

    And that's a problem. 

    Conflict Escalation

    There's no question that litigation escalates whatever conflict existed when our client first walks in our door.  We don't, after all, make requests.  We issue demands.  We don't seek concessions.  We insist upon them.  We don't make inquiries.  We require responses.  And we're not such great listeners.  Rather, we impatiently tap our feet in Court, waiting for counsel to finish his argument (which we've heard dozens of times before) so we can press our case.

    Are these bad things?  Not necessarily.  So long as we understand what we're doing and the likely results our conduct will have, escalation is not necessarily worse than maintaining a steady state or even deescalating conflict.  

    The problem for most of us is that we don't know what we're doing and we don't understand the breadth and depth of the likely repercussions.  

    In Conflict Escalation: Dispute Exacerbating Elements of E-Mail Communication, author Raymond A. Friedman of the Owen Graduate School of Management at Vanderbilt University quotes conflict specialists Rubin, Pruitt and Kim on the difficulties caused by escalation tactics and strategy.  According to Rubin, et al., escalation is 

    "an increase in the intensity of a conflict as a whole.”  Escalation is important . . . because when conflict escalates it “is intensified in ways that are sometimes exceedingly difficult to undo.”  One reason why escalated conflicts are so hard to undo is that when more aggressive tactics are used by one side they are often mirrored by the other side, producing a vicious cycle.

    Email, Friedman argues, unnecessarily, and often drastically, escalates conflict in ways none of us fully appreciate.  Unlike conversation -- in person or by telephone -- we are not

    physically present with others, can’t see their faces or hear their voices, and can’t give or get immediate responses. The lack of contextual clues . . . impose high “understanding costs” on participants in e-mail interactions, making it harder to successfully ground the interaction. . . . /*  [T]the inability to carefully time actions and reactions . . . makes communication less precise.  

    E-mail Not Only Lacks Social Clues, it is "Profoundly A-Social." 

    Sitting in my Toronto hotel room at 3 a.m., reviewing online documents for tomorrow's deposition and now "penning" an email to my errant associate, I am, argues Friedman, not simply making communication more difficult, I have become "profoundly asocial" as my associate will also likely be when he reviews my email the following day.  "E-mails," writes Friedman,

    are typically received and written while the writer is in isolation, staring at a computer screen – perhaps for hours at a time, so that awareness of the humanness of the counterpart may be diminished.

    As evidence, Friedman cites research in which subjects played the "prisoner's dilemma" game against a computer.  Not only did the gamers act asocially in this context, "many continued to act asocially even when told that they were now playing with people (through the computer)."

    E-mail, Friedman concludes, "often occurs in a context devoid of awareness of human sensibilities."

    The Precise Difficulties Caused by E-Mail Communications?

    Use of aggressive tactics. If e-mail communication encourages the use of more aggressive tactics during a dispute, or makes a counterpart’s tactics appear more aggressive, then escalation will be triggered.

    Changes in view of other. Escalation is more likely if e-mail causes negative changes in psychological processes (e.g., perceptions and attitudes) towards the other, such as (1) seeing the other as unfair, (2) lessening empathy toward them, (3) increasing deindividuation and anonymity, or (4) or seeing the other as immoral.

    Weakened interpersonal bonds. If e-mail weakens social bonds with the other, then escalation is more likely (e.g., due to reduced inhibitions for aggression).

    Problems are difficult to resolve. If the communication limitations of e-mail (e.g., asynchrony deficits) make problems more difficult to solve, conflict may be escalated as frustrated disputants move from mild to more aggressive strategies to achieve their goals.

    As a result, says Friedman, there are "higher rates of escalation when disputes are managed via e-mail than via face-to-face communication or other relatively rich media . . . such as telephone conversations." /**

    Back in Los Angeles the Following Day

    You knew this story was not going to have a happy ending.  What a cranky, tired, stressed partner types into her computer at 3 a.m. and what a fully awake associate reads with his morning coffee the following day are, as Friedman stresses, two quite different things.  And though I've rarely had a face-to-face disagreement with a colleague that cannot be mended by further communication, apologies, explanations and the like, this particular communication caused a rift that I was unable to heal.

    This experience from several years ago, coupled with my recent mediation experiences, makes me want to advise, exhort, plead, beseech, entreat and pray that you commence every litigation with a telephone call rather than a "demand" letter or email.  And that you continue to communicate with opposing counsel by telephone or, even more radically, in person over a meal, throughout the litigation to make sure channels of communication are as open and clear as possible.

    The difficulties saved will not only benefit your personal life (reduce stress, increase fellow-feeling and the like) but will benefit your client as well -- in case efficiencies and better settlements all around.     



    */  "Grounding" is the process 

    by which two parties in an interaction achieve a shared sense of understanding about a communication and a shared sense of participation in the conversation. Grounding is important because “speech is evanescent...so Alan must try to speak only when he thinks Barbara is attending to, hearing, and trying to understand what he is saying, and she must guide him by giving evidence that she is doing just this."

    ** /  There's much more to be learned from this article, but these highlights should tell you whether further reading is in your interest or worth your time. 

    Do Interest-Based Negotiation and Mediation "Trade Justice for Harmony"?

    Among the most frequently asked questions at my negotiation trainings are these:

    1. how do you negotiate with a sociopath?
    2. how do you negotiate with people who are:
      1. evil
      2. dishonest; or
      3. 100% irremediable jerks
    3. how do you negotiate when you are powerless (or simply weak)

    Whenever someone asks me about negotiating evil, I think of Ken Cloke's brilliant book Conflict Revolution: Mediating Evil, War, Injustice and Terrorism – How Mediators Can Help Save the Planet (my review of that book here).  Some time ago, when I had the bright but failed idea of launching an online conflict resolution journal, Ken kindly let me publish his article Mediating Evil, War and Terrorism the Politics of Conflict, some of which I quote below.  I like the way Ken framed the problem in his earlier book, Mediating Dangerously, as follows:

    For those who live under fascism, oppression, or tyranny, or face a fierce, unprincipled adversary, or are afraid even to exercise their own freedom, it may become necessary to engage in conflict, resist oppression, reject settlement, and raise their voices against the silence of acquiescence . . . . [T]here are limits to the desirability of ending [certain conflicts] prematurely, without a fair and honest examination of the underlying issues, and without the full participation of people whose lives will be irrevocably damaged by them . . . Collaboration implies mutuality and partnership, and even compromise involves give and take, but fascism merely [takes] giving nothing in return.

    Those who recall the free speech movement on college campuses in the mid-sixties (most notably at U.C. Berkeley) will remember at least some of the words spoken by FSM leader Mario Savio:

    There comes a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, the people who own it, that unless you're free the machine will be prevented from working at all.

    One might criticize this rhetoric as being a bit overblown for the context in which the students were operating but they were young; had been taught in public schools to believe in and cherish freedom; and, were stunned to find that their on-campus speech was regulated, controlled, and, punished.  Savio's voice is the voice of all peoples who find their freedom suppressed or denied altogether.

    So what do we, mediators and interest-based negotiators, do when confronted with tyranny?  Cloke's partial response (see full article here) is as follows:

    Genuine, lasting peace is impossible in the absence of justice. Where injustice prevails, peace becomes merely a way of masking and compounding prior crimes, impeding necessary changes, and rationalizing injustices. As the Trappist monk Thomas Merton presciently observed:

      To some men peace merely means the liberty to exploit other people without fear of retaliation or interference. To others peace means the freedom to rob others without interruption. To still others it means the leisure to devour the goods of the earth without being compelled to interrupt their pleasures to feed those whom their greed is starving. And to practically everybody peace simply means the absence of any physical violence that might cast a shadow over lives devoted to the satisfaction of their animal appetites for comfort and leisure.... [T]heir idea of peace was only another form of war.

    When millions lack the essentials of life, peace becomes a sanction for continued suffering, and compromise a front for capitulation, passivity, and acceptance of injustice. This led anthropologist Laura Nader to criticize mediation for its willingness to “trade justice for harmony.”

    True peace requires justice and a dedication to satisfying basic human needs, otherwise it is merely the self-interest of the satisfied, the ruling clique, the oppressors, the victors in search of further spoils.

    For peace to be achieved in the Middle East or elsewhere, it is essential that we neither trivialize conflict nor become stuck in the language of good and evil, but work collaboratively and compassionately to redress the underlying injustices and pain each side caused the other. Ultimately, this means sharing power and resources, advantages and disadvantages, successes and failures, and satisfying everyone’s legitimate interests. It means collaborating and making decisions together. It means giving up being right and assuming others are wrong. It means taking the time to work through our differences, and making our opponents' interests our own.

    In helping to make these shifts and move from Apartheid to integration, the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission found that for people to reach forgiveness, they needed to exchange personal stories of anger, fear, pain, jealousy, guilt, grief, and shame; to empathize, recognize, and acknowledge each other’s interests; to engage in open, honest dialogue; to reorient themselves to the future; to participate in rituals of collective grief that released their pain and loss; and to mourn those who died because neither side had the wisdom or courage to apologize for their assumptions of evil, or the evil they caused their opponents and themselves.

    At the same time, they also needed to improve the daily lives of those who suffered and were treated unjustly under apartheid. Where shanty towns coexist with country clubs, peace cannot be lasting or secure. Where some go hungry while others are well-fed, terror and violence are nourished. In the end, it comes down to a question of sharing wealth and power, realizing that we are all one family, and that an injury to one is genuinely an injury to all.

    Making justice an integral part of conflict resolution and the search for peaceful solutions means not merely settling conflicts, but resolving, transforming, and transcending them by turning them into levers of social dialogue and learning, catalysts of community and collaboration, and commitments to political, economic, and social change. By failing to take these additional remedial steps, we make justice secondary to peace, undermine both, guarantee the continuation of our conflicts, and prepare the way for more to come.

    By the way, tomorrow is Ken's birthday.  HAPPY BIRTHDAY KEN!!!


    More on Bargaining from a Position of Weakness

    Because I've been talking to a lot of people with services or products to sell in what they perceive to be a buyer's market, I've been giving a fair amount of advice about negotiating from a position of weakness.  That being the case, I'm just jotting down a few random thoughts on the matter.  None of the items below are meant to be exhaustive. 

    Here's a previous post on the same topic.  And here's a great Malcolm Gladwell article on how weak nation-states and basketball teams can become the victors by playing the game on their own terms:  Annals of Innovation:  How David Beats Goliath.


    • assess everything you have of value to exchange with your negotiation partner
    • assess everything your negotiation partner has of value to exchange with you
    • assess everything you need or desire (minimum requirements to maximum benefit)
    • assess everything your bargaining partner likely needs or desires


    • what are their objectives
    • how does your deal fit into those objectives
    • what are their priorities
    • when do they need to have the deal done
    • are there any third parties who might add value to the deal
    • what predictions about the future are they relying upon in setting their goals and priorities (business will go up/down; economy will improve/worsen)
    • what metrics are they using to place a value on what you both have to trade


    • if the value you give to the deal is worth more in the hands of your bargaining partner than in your own hands, use the deal value rather than the trade value as the metric to measure the benefit you are providing
    • when trading items of low value to you but higher value to your negotiation partner, use the higher value to anchor your offer
    • when you are more optimistic about the post-deal future than your bargaining partner, consider building contingencies into the contract, i.e., if sales increase (as you expect them to) the value of the deal for you increases; if sales decrease (as your bargaining partner expects them to) offer to build contingency into the contract that will increase the value of the deal to your bargaining partner


    • when you make a concession, your bargaining partner should naturally feel the pull to reciprocate
    • don't rely on your bargaining partner's natural tendencies
    • when you make a concession, explain how valuable it is to your bargaining partner and how difficult it is to give up for you
    • tell your bargaining partner that you expect proportional concessions from them


    If you're the smaller player, you may be in a better position to make novel offers; and you may also be more nimble, less burdened by bureaucratic red tape, and, better able to take risks.  You may also:

    • pose a threat to a larger player, something your "deal" could lessen or eliminate
    • present an opportunity to a larger player that it may wish to take advantage of while you are still small

    Negotiating Conflict in a Business Setting with a Word for Women and a Caution on Negotiation Ethics

    Here's part I of the Resource Materials for the full-day training which included this Power Point Presentation.

    Part I includes articles (see the Table of Contents) on The Social Psychology of Conflict; Negotiation and Gender; Distributive Bargaining; and, Integrative and Interest-Based Negotiation.

    Never Negotiate with Your Creditors Out of Fear, But Never Fear to Negotiate Lower Interest Rates, Waiver of Interest, Late Fees, Etc.

    O.K., times are tough.  And it takes no small amount of courage to face the financial disaster that credit cards can cause to even those who feel themselves to be the most sober of financial citizens.  Then it takes real courage to pick up a telephone and make a request to a disembodied and not-likely-friendly voice to ask for help bailing you out of a mess you can barely believe you find yourself in.

    I have three things to say about this.  First. The country's supposed financial geniuses are unable to pay their debts and are facing bankruptcy.  You are not alone.  Second.  There's nothing to be ashamed of, though there is something to be learned from this painful experience.  I know.  I was there during the recession of the early '90s.  Third.  You are not without remedy.  Take a look at "How to Negotiate with Your Creditors" at Entrepreneur Magazine this week.

    Tips to help you negotiate with a creditor or collection agency:


      • If you make a request that is denied for whatever reason, ask to speak with a supervisor.

      • Don’t agree to pay more than you can afford when negotiating. Know in advance what your financial situation really is, then work within those confines. The last thing you want to do is negotiate a settlement or payment plan that you can’t adhere to.

      • During your negotiating process, figure out what the creditor is willing to accept as a settlement. What’s their absolute bottom line? If you’re looking for a settlement, offering between 50 and 70 percent of what’s owed, either as a lump sum payment or through a payment plan, isn’t unreasonable. Achieving this settlement might take several rounds of negotiation, however.

      • Avoid becoming intimidated by the person you’re negotiating with, even if they make threats about lawsuits.

      • Most successful negotiations require several rounds going back and forth with offers and counter offers. The process could take days or weeks.

      • If you can afford to settle an account by paying one lump sum (as opposed to using a payment plan), you’ll have more negotiating leverage.

      • The person you’re negotiating with does this for a living and is a trained professional when it comes to debt collections. For them to use legal terminology during a conversation or in writing is a common tactic to confuse or intimidate you. Listen carefully to what’s being said and make sure you understand exactly what you’re committing to. Consult with a lawyer or credit counselor if you have questions.

      • Make sure everything you ultimately agree to is put in writing, signed, and dated by both parties.

    What to Negotiate for When Dealing with Creditors, Lenders, or Collection Agencies

    • a lower interest rate

    • the interest accrued to be waived

    • the late fees, penalties, and/or legal fees to be waived

    • the loan to be extended or restructured, allowing you to skip one or more payments with no penalty

    • a payment plan that would allow you to pay off the amount currently owed, but with no added interest or fees added in the future

    • a settlement that would include a significantly lower balance due (such as 50 to 75 percent of the total)

    • favorable reporting to the credit reporting agencies or the removal of negative information from your credit report pertaining that to that account
    Jason R. Rich is the bestselling author of more than 37 books including The Complete Book of Dirty Little Secrets: Money-Saving Strategies the Credit Bureaus Won’t Tell You, available from Entrepreneur Press. His books cover a wide range of topics, including computers, e-commerce, personal finance, career-related topics, and travel and entertainment. He also contributes regularly to major daily newspapers, including the New York Daily News, as well as national magazines and popular websites.

    Negotiation 101: Gender War or Gender Peace and Prosperity?

    Although I am indisputably a "woman lawyer," I have never thought of myself in those terms.  I'm a lawyer.  And I'm a woman.  I'm also a writer, a step-mother, a wife, a daughter, a river rafter, and an aficionado of squash (the game, not the vegetable), photography, literature, and theater.  Oh yes.  I'm also Caucasian. I rarely have to think of myself in those terms, however, because the society in which I live doesn't require it of me.  I'm aware of my skin color only when I'm with my African-American friends or in a racially mixed workplace (shamefully rare in modern American private legal and ADR practice).

    I was forced to become more conscious of my gender when I became a commercial mediator and arbitrator five years ago because I am once again a "minority" -- something I hadn't been in legal practice since the early 1980's.  Naturally, I began to research differences in negotiation styles between men and women. What I learned wasn't surprising, but it is empowering.  Although we do negotiate differently, if we learn to move more easily back and forth across gender lines, we can all become better negotiators.

    First, the "old news" about women's ability to negotiate as well as men from a 2008 article entitled The Different Negotiation Styles Between Men and Women from which all of the quotes below have been taken.

    Although negotiation has always been an important workplace skill, it has long been thought to be the province of men: a competitive realm in which men excelled and women felt less capable.

    I have lived the change in gender roles since I graduated from high school in 1970.  1970 was a year in which the newspaper's classified ads (yesterday's "Craig's List")  were "Help Wanted:  Women" and "Help Wanted:  Men"; and a year in which I took my high school's career preference test on the literally pink form which limited my choices to occupations like nurse (if I was good at math and science); teacher or social worker (if I was good at the liberal arts); and secretary (if I knew the QWRTY keyboard).  The cultural expectations of women, however, persist.

     "...our society still perpetuates rigid gender based standards for behavior-standards that require women to behave modestly and unselfishly and to avoid promoting their own self-interest" (Babcock, 2003). As women learn quite early in life "that competing and winning against a man can threaten his socially defined masculinity" and is socially seen as taboo. From the beginning of a woman's life, they are taught by society "that women are thought to be warm, expressive, nurturing, emotional, and friendly" (Babcock, 2003). When growing up girls are cuddled; baby girls are also 'thrown around' less and thought of as fragile. If everyone goes through their life with this mentality in mind, it is hard for women to break away from this stereotype and still be taken seriously and not as overbearing or overly competitive which can harm women in negotiation.

    Here's the good negotiation news for women's acculturation.

    •  "Women are more likely to use methods" (Babcock, 2003) in their negotiation, to follow a set of rules or steps to get to a final outcome."
    • "They take a broad or 'collective' perspective, and they view elements in a task as interconnected and interdependent" (Conner, 1999).
    • Women have the ability to see the big picture and come up with a systematic plan on how to solve it.
    • They feel more comfortable through communication and work through each step by sharing experiences while figuring out what both sides can gain to achieve an integrated outcome.
    • "Woman are usually more concerned about how problems are solved than merely solving the problem itself" (Conner, 1999) which is good in negotiation because of all of the small details to keep in mind when making negotiations.
    • Instead of concentrating on what they want or need to get out of the negotiation women focus on what both sides need and how both parties can get what they want.

    While these general tendencies of women (understanding that we all operate on a sliding scale of "femaleness" and "maleness") were previously believed to be negotiation deficits, they are now perceived as negotiation assets. 

    The focus of negotiation recently has shifted to be a more win-win rather than a win-lose (Babcock, 2003), which is why women are tending to exceed more in today's negotiations. "Women take a more cooperative approach to negotiating" (Babcock, 2003) they are willing to work with the other person and are able to see both sides so both can get what they want. In a negotiation, women tend to ask more questions and do more talking one on one, however, "women discuss what is directly related to what each side wants introducing information into negotiations helps expand the understanding of the goals on both sides" (Babcock, 2003). This is good to build a relationship before the big negotiation start.

    But let's not get all gender wars about this.   Let's instead focus on male negotiation advantages that can be adopted by women and female negotiation advantages that can be adopted by men.  The male advantages? (once again remembering that we are dealing with social and cultural stereotypes)

    • men . . . believ[e] that they have a bargaining advantage [which naturally gives it to them]"
    •  they also believe that they are entitled to more rewards and compensation [which makes them seek better results for themselves than women might]
    • [men] have this greater sense of pride and self-importance so they don't believe that they should be the ones who have to back down from something that they want.
    • Men . . . ha[ve] the ability to speak up more and use more distributive tactics
    • They want to have their questions answered and find out the  information that they believe they are entitled to know.
    • Men also want to make sure that people know what their ideas are and try and get as many people as possible to agree with them.
    • [M]en make more remarks as . . . suggest[ions] that they are entitled to more than others and asserti[ons] [of]  their own worth; . . . thinking that people should hear them out
    • Men are also seen as stronger more aggressive speakers than women.
    • Some people become intimidated when a male speaker starts "pushing their weight around" during a negotiation. 
    • men are seeking more power and in turn believe that they deserve more power.
    • In some cases, men can seem to know more than women just because they can make whatever they say seem like the ultimate truth with everyone else being wrong.

    How men and women can collaborate to maximize the value of these differing negotiation styles tomorrow.

    Negotiation 101: Putting "No" into a "Yes Sandwich"

    With so much emphasis placed on Getting to Yes, we often forget the power - indeed the necessity -- of saying "no."

    Think of yourself in that iconic bargaining environment, the foreign bazaar.  No matter how much of a buyers' market you're in, at some point, the seller must say no -- otherwise you'd just bargain him down to zero, or perhaps negotiate a deal in which he pays you to take the merchandise off his hands.  Fortunately for negotiators everyone, the Getting to Yes guy -- William Ury -- has also written an entire book on The Power of a Positive No.  As Time Magazine wrote at the time of "No's" release,

    In The Power of a Positive No, Ury offers guidance on the flip side of reaching an agreement: how to deal with a situation in which you simply want to put your foot down. No is so often hard to say, Ury writes, because it highlights the "tension between exercising your power and tending to your relationship"--in other words, between getting what you want in the short term and keeping everyone happy for interactions down the road. People often err in one direction or the other, prioritizing either the relationship by saying yes when they long to say no or their own power by brusquely saying no and alienating the person they're dealing with. Then there is the ever popular route of avoidance--saying nothing at all and gaining neither what you want nor goodwill.

    See Why Almost Everyone Has Trouble Saying No.

    Ury's answer to "no" avoidance?

    [S]erve your no sandwiched between two yeses. It will go down more easily and preserve your relationship yet still allow you to take a stand.

    How does the famous "getting to yes" guy say "no"?  By "focusing on underlying interests instead of positions (discussing what you want instead of the way you've decided to get there) [and] developing another option ( . . . Plan B)."  To accomplish this goal, the negotiator must ask diagnostic questions about his bargaining partner's needs, fears, preferences and priorities.(.pdf of Northwestern Professor Leigh Thompson's enduringly great article Why Negotiation is the Most Popular Business School Course; see also chapter one of her must-read The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator here).

    Assume, for instance, that you're selling software and your customer wants a broad indemnity agreement that amounts to a virtual insurance policy.  You know the type.  "I want to be indemnified for all litigation arising from my company's use of your software.  It's non-negotiable.  We'll pull out of the deal if you don't provide it to us."

    Before saying "no, no, no" or feeling the need to temporize or mumble something unintelligible, determine whether your customer's demand is primarily being driven by need, desire, or fear.  Here, the underlying interest is perceived need based upon fear of potential liability.  Rest assured that your customer is not worried about everything.  There's some particular danger lurking in the back of his mine or in the contemplation of the manager to whom he's reporting. 

    The diagnostic question is simple:  "what type of potential liabilities are you worried about?" When your customer answers your question, the "yeses" your "no" can be sandwiched between are legion.   

    "We're always happy to craft an indemnity agreement that covers potential liabilities arising from, i.e., defects in the software that cause the type of harm you're worried about.  In fact, because infallible software has yet to be developed, we like to offer our customers a suite of services to quickly remedy any "defects" to prevent the liabilities you're concerned with.  And now that we're talking about it, let's define "defects" so that it fully expresses both of our understandings going forward.

    The key is to slow yourself down during the negotiation so that you have time to reframe your "no" as an opportunity for both parties to get more of what they really want than they fear they need. 

    As a former pastor of mine once told me, "God never says 'no' to a prayer.  S/he says 'yes,' 'later' or 'I have something better in store for you.'  Approach the material world in the same manner as he does and not only your opportunities, but your heart, will grow in the practice.  

    Negotiating the Settlement of a Personal Injury Action? Here are Some Helpful Statistics

    My statistics page tells me that lawyers are not the only people searching for information about likely outcomes at trial.  The clients land here too.  For their benefit, here's a report from the Accident and Injury Lawyer Blog, penned last Spring but likely to reflect current trends as well. 

    California Personal Injury Verdicts

    California personal injury plaintiffs are among the best compensated injury victims in the country but that California juries need convincing that the defendant is liable. California’s median compensatory award in personal injury cases is 149,000, dwarfing the national median of $34,550. But California juries only award damages in 44 percent of personal injury case that go to verdict. Nationally, plaintiffs prevail in 52% of personal injury cases.

    These California personal injury verdict numbers, not median or average settlements in personal injury cases. But settlement values largely reflect the median verdicts.

    I don't know if anyone has yet studied the effect of the economic downturn on juries' willingness to compensate injured plaintiffs (Anne Reed?)  I'd suspect that actions against insurance carriers - particularly health insurance carriers - would "sell" to jurors and stimulate their empathy given everyone's fear of losing their jobs and the insurance that often goes along with employment.

    I wonder, however, if today's jurors might not turn a cold eye on anyone they believe to be "gaming" the system or seeking compensation for injuries that they too are suffering but about which suffering they have no one individual or entity to "name, claim and blame."

    I'd be interested in hearing from my litigation colleagues about the current atmosphere in jury deliberation rooms.  The best jury blog, hands down, by the way, is attorney and jury consultant Anne Reed's Deliberations.

    The Question is Not WHETHER But HOW MUCH Your Mediator is Deceiving You

    I spent the day at an advanced mediation training session at the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles where I serve as a settlement officer. I came away troubled by the wide array of responses to questions concerning the mediator's "right" or "desire" or "need" to use deception in separate caucus mediation - the primary form mediation takes in Southern California litigated cases.

    At the end of our session, I suggested to a fellow mediator that all separate caucus mediation is inherently deceptive. He is a sophisticated practitioner and knew exactly what I meant. My husband - a litigator of 35 years who is also (newly) on the District Court's Settlement Officer panel - recoiled at the idea.

    Here, for your consideration, is an excerpt from a lengthy discussion of the issue from the Journal of the DuPage County Bar Association -- Defining the Ethical Limits of Acceptable Deception in Mediation by JAMS mediator the Hon. John W. Cooley (Ret.) 

    [C]onsensual deception is the essence of caucused mediation. This statement should not come as a shock to the reader when it is considered in the context of the nature and purpose of caucusing. Actually, it is quite rare that caucused mediation, a type of informational game, occurs without the use of deception by the parties, by their lawyers, and/or by the mediator in some form. This is so for several reasons.

    First, a basic groundrule of the information system operating in any mediated case in which there is caucusing is that confidential information conveyed to the mediator by any party cannot be disclosed by the mediator to anyone (with narrowly limited exceptions). This means that: (1) each party in mediation rarely, if ever, knows whether another party has disclosed confidential information to the mediator; and (2) if confidential information has been disclosed, the nondisclosing party never knows the specific content of that confidential information and whether and/or to what extent that confidential information has colored or otherwise affected communications coming to the nondisclosing party from the mediator. In this respect, each party in a mediation is an actual or potential victim of constant deception regarding confidential information — granted, agreed deception — but nonetheless deception. This is the central paradox of the caucused mediation process. The parties, and indeed even the mediator, agree to be deceived as a condition of participating in it in order to find a solution that the parties will find "valid" for their purposes.

    Second, mediation rarely occurs absent deception because the parties (and their counsel) are normally engaged in the strategies and tactics of competitive bargaining during all or part of the mediation conference, and the goal of each party is to get the best deal for himself or herself.

    These competitive bargaining strategies and tactics are layered and interlaced with the mediator’s own strategies and tactics to get the best resolution possible for the parties — or at least a resolution that they can accept. The confluence of these, initially anyway, unaligned strategies, tactics, and goals creates an environment rich in gamesmanship and intrigue, naturally conducive to the use of deceptive behaviors by the parties and their counsel, and yes, even by mediators. Actually, even more so by mediators because they are the conductors — the orchestrators — of an information system specially designed for each dispute, a system with ambiguously defined or, in some situations, undefined disclosure rules in which the mediator is the Chief Information Officer who has near-absolute control over what nonconfidential information, critical or otherwise, is developed, what is withheld, what is disclosed, and when it is disclosed. As mediation pioneer Christopher Moore has noted: "The ability to control, manipulate, suppress, or enhance data, or to initiate entirely new information, gives the mediator an inordinate level of influence over the parties."

    Third, the information system manipulated by the mediator in any dispute context is itself imperfect. Parties, rarely, if ever, share with the mediator all the information relevant, or even necessary, to the achievement of the mediator’s goal — an agreed resolution of conflict. The parties’ deceptive behavior in this regard — jointly understood by the parties and the mediator in any mediation to fall within the agreed "rules of the game" — sometimes causes mediations to fail or prevents optimal solutions from being achieved.

    Thus, if agreed deception is a central ingredient in caucused mediation, the question then becomes what types of deception should be considered constructive, within the rules of the mediation game, and ethically acceptable and what types should be considered destructive, beyond the bounds of fair play, and ethically unacceptable. Or, perhaps more simply, in the words of mediator Robert Benjamin, in mediation what are the characteristics of the "noble lie" — deception "designed to shift and reconfigure the thinking of disputing parties, especially in the conflict and confusion, and to foster and further their cooperation, tolerance, and survival"? Because formal mediation is generally viewed as "nothing more than a three-party or multiple-party negotiation," we can begin to formulate an answer to this question by examining the current limits of acceptable deception as employed by lawyer-negotiators.

    New Zealand mediator Geoff Sharp blogged on this topic under the rubric "noisy disclosure" recently, noting that

    Mediators can assist parties in reaching a zone of possible agreement by making limited and heavily filtered disclosures of the parties’ private concessions that the parties disclose in caucus sessions (Brown and Ayres call this “noisy” communication).

    See my own short post on mediator predictions and false signals here

     I urge all my readers to comment, but particularly litigators like my husband who may not know what many mediators have apparently known for quite some time -- that they are making "filtered disclosures of the parties' private concessions" after promising to keep all separate caucus communications strictly confidential.

    My husband assured me on the way home tonight that he will henceforth require all of the mediators he retains to guarantee him that they will not "signal" his negotiating positions, tactics or strategies to his bargaining partners.

    Your thoughts?

    California Courts May Not Require Parties to "Negotiate in Good Faith"

    Although a California Court may properly sanction a non-party insurance carrier who possesses the authority to settle litigation for its failure to participate in a mandatory settlement conference, there is no statutory (nor inherent) authority given the Court to sanction the carrier or a party for its purported failure to negotiate in "good faith."  As the Court in Vidrio v. Hernandez (2d DCA) explained today:

    In sum, even were we to agree with the trial court's assessment of the conduct of counsel and the [insurance] adjuster, the failure to increase a settlement offer or to otherwise participate meaningfully in settlement negotiations violates no rule of court and is not a proper basis for an award of sanctions.11 (See, e.g., Triplett v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1424 [“[w]e eschew any notion that a court may effectively force an unwilling party to settle by raising the specter of a post hoc determination that failure to do so will be evidence of failure to participate in good faith”]; Sigala v. Anaheim City School Dist., supra, 15 Cal.App.4th at p. 669 [“„[a] court may not compel a litigant to settle a case, but it may direct him to engage personally in settlement negotiations, provided the conditions for such negotiations are otherwise reasonable‟”].) [Defendant] filed an appropriate settlement conference statement; her lawyer and Mercury [the insurance carrier] attended the conference and participated in it. While the trial court‟s frustration at the parties‟ lack of movement is understandable, no more was required.

    In particular, the Court of Appeal, held that the Court was not at liberty to "judge" whether the defendant and its carrier "should have" offered more than had previously been offered at a mediation either because the case was "worth" more or because the offer was so low in light of the attorneys fees and costs that would likely be incurred at trial.

    I believe most mediators would approve of this ruling, even though it applies only to settlement conferences and not to mediations, the latter of which is protected from the Court's inquiry by Evidence Code section 1119.  Whether or not a mediator, a settlement judge, a party or a trial judge believes a defendant "should" offer more or a plaintiff "should" accept less by way of settlement, should not form the basis of an award of sanctions.  Not only would such a rule decrease citizens' trust and respect for the Courts, whose job it presumably is to provide a forum in which litigated disputes may be tried, such a rule would impermissibly chill the parties' Constitutional right to a jury trial.  


    Negotiating Women on New Day Talk Radio Easter Sunday Noon

    (and, yes, I am not only old enough to remember the "Second Wave" Women's Movement, I took a quite serious role in it, first as an unpaid volunteer and later through the federal government's "Program for Local Service" at the Center for Women's Studies and Services in San Diego)

    If you're celebrating Easter tomorrow and bored with the relatives, tune into New Day Talk Radio for a live call-in program on negotiation for women.

    I've quoted Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever before on women and negotiation.  I've also trained executive women to use their natural talents, skill and affiliative natures to overcome the statistics I'm about to give you, straight from Babcock and Laschever's site Women Don't Ask:  Negotiation and the Gender Divide.

    Tomorrow, I'll be talking live on internet radio with PWNSC member and force of nature Lynette Jones who has only recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq.  Lynette and I had so much fun planning this internet radio-cast that I'm certain you'll enjoy our talk.

    And if you need more reason to tune in, here are the dreary statistics on women and negotiation from Babcock and Laschever's book Women Don't Ask.

    It's Necessary for Women to Negotiate Now More Than Ever Before

    • Between May 2001 and May 2002, 39 percent of the American workforce changed jobs.

    • In 2000, 76.8 percent of women aged 25 to 54 worked outside the home.

    • The divorce rate hovers at 50 percent.

    • Union membership is down 33 percent since 1983.

    • Women's earnings relative to men's have stagnated at 73.2 percent.

    • The percentage of births to single mothers (out of all mothers) has risen from 10 percent in 1970 to 33 percent today.

    Women Don't Like to Negotiate

    • In surveys, 2.5 times more women than men said they feel "a great deal of apprehension" about negotiating.

    • Men initiate negotiations about four times as often as women.

    • When asked to pick metaphors for the process of negotiating, men picked "winning a ballgame" and a "wrestling match," while women picked "going to the dentist."

    • Women will pay as much as $1,353 to avoid negotiating the price of a car, which may help explain why 63 percent of Saturn car buyers are women.

    • Women are more pessimistic about the how much is available when they do negotiate and so they typically ask for and get less when they do negotiate—on average, 30 percent less than men.

    • 20 percent of adult women (22 million people) say they never negotiate at all, even though they often recognize negotiation as appropriate and even necessary.

    Women Suffer When They Don't Negotiate

    • By not negotiating a first salary, an individual stands to lose more than $500,000 by age 60—and men are more than four times as likely as women to negotiate a first salary.

    • In one study, eight times as many men as women graduating with master's degrees from Carnegie Mellon negotiated their salaries. The men who negotiated were able to increase their starting salaries by an average of 7.4 percent, or about $4,000. In the same study, men's starting salaries were about $4,000 higher than the women's on average, suggesting that the gender gap between men and women might have been closed if more of the women had negotiated their starting salaries.

    • Another study calculated that women who consistently negotiate their salary increases earn at least $1 million more during their careers than women who don't.

    • In 2001 in the U.S. women held only 2.5 percent of the top jobs at American companies and only 10.9 percent of the board of directors' seats at Fortune 1000 companies.

    • Women own about 40 percent of all businesses in the U.S. but receive only 2.3 percent of the available equity capital needed for growth. Male-owned companies receive the other 97.7. percent.

    Women Have Lower Expectations and Lack Knowledge of their Worth

    • Many women are so grateful to be offered a job that they accept what they are offered and don't negotiate their salaries.

    • Women often don't know the market value of their work: Women report salary expectations between 3 and 32 percent lower than those of men for the same jobs; men expect to earn 13 percent more than women during their first year of full-time work and 32 percent more at their career peaks.

    Settling Lawsuits: Money is the Instrument but Justice is the Issue

    As every lawyer knows and most students of high school geometry must learn in mastering "proofs," the answer often comes first, the rationale later.  I used to say, "I'm a litigator, I can rationalize anything."  As a mediator, my rationalizations have turned from the way in which facts can be shoe-horned into causes of action or affirmative defenses to the way in which harm arising from a dispute (including, most assuredly, the moral harm of injustice) can be monetized.

    Now David Brooks in the New York Times (which appears to have disabled the "copy" function/1) tells us that philosophy has been sacrificed on the alter of emotion in his column The End of Philosophy

    As Brooks explains, reasoning comes after moral judgment and "is often guided by the emotions that preceded it."  The good news is that those emotions are not merely competitive.  Brooks again:

    Like bees, humans have long lived or died based on their ability to divide labor, help each other, and stand together in the face of common threats.  Many of our moral emotions and intuitions reflect that history.  We don't just care about our individual rights, or even the rights of other individuals.   We also care about loyalty, respect, traditions, religions.  We are all the descendents of successful cooperators.

    My mediation experience teaches me that the "soft" arts of influence, empathy, community-building, and prejudice reduction, are as important (and often more important) to the successful (i.e., satisfying) resolution of a lawsuit than our prized ability to parse the evidence,  rationalize away the bad and privilege the good to sell our "proof" to judge or jury.

    Most importantly, I find that when attorneys' clients leave a mediation with the belief that a certain rough justice has been obtained, they are more satisfied with the outcome, and with their attorneys' representation of their interests, than they might have been had they left with 10% more change jingling in their pockets.

    The experts who study mediation tell us that "neutrals" don't make the difference between settling or not settling.  The cases will settle with or without us.  The difference mediators make is not settlement, but  client satisfaction.  Satisfied clients are  an absolute necessity for a successful legal practice at any time.  In these hard times, legal practices may fail in the absence of resolutions addressing the justice issues your client sought out a lawyer to resolve in the first place.

    Money is the instrument.  But justice is the issue.






    1/  More about this at IP ADR later today.


    Negotiating Emotion (and Client Development) with Arnie Herz at Legal Sanity

    (image by the great Charles Fincher at LawComix)

    Thanks first to LexBlog for giving yesterday's post here a shout-out but more importantly, thanks to LexBlog for giving Arnie Herz' post at Legal Sanity Why lawyers should get emotional with clients coverage in the same daily compilation of LexBlog client posts, a tremendous resource I highly recommend you include on your news reader.

    You'll see from my lengthy comment there that Arnie is singing my song about the law and emotion and in particular, the fact that we cannot make decisions without emotion something every trial lawyer, negotiator, mediator and sales person knows down to the knuckles of their spine.  Excerpt from Legal Sanity below.

    Here are two facts:

    • There’s a client service deficit in the law.

    • Lawyers tend to regard emotions – their own and other people’s – as irrelevant to their work.

    At first glance, these two facts seem unrelated. But they’re actually closely (even intimately) connected. 

    Some time back, I posted on the interplay of emotions and client service in this new era of customer control. I linked to a ClickZ article citing a (then) new book by Dan Hill called Emotionomics: Winning Hearts and Minds. Launching from the premise that humans are primarily emotional decision-makers, the book discusses how emotions factor into our business opportunities in the marketplace and workplace. 

    Picking up on this point from a slightly different angle, in a recent post, designer and marketing mentor Peleg Top says, Go ahead, get emotional. Top notes that, in marketing (and, I’d add, in providing) our services, “an effective way to generate action is to tell a compelling story, one that hits your customer’s emotions.” Suggesting that most service providers miss this mark, he observes . . .

    For the remainder of Arnie's great post, click here.  And here's another great link on the same topic from Cutting Edge Law - the illicit relationship of lawyers and emotion.

    More on the effective use of emotion in the negotiation of settlements soon.


    The Godfather of Collaborative Law Talks about Litigation and its Discontents

    Discouraged by the adversarial process?  Looking for lawyers who will handle your commercial dispute without going to "war" with all the expense and collateral damage that involves?

    This excellent talk by Webb has been viewed 202 times, while "Drunk Lawyer" below has been viewed by nearly 300,000 people.  It's not surprising that drunken trial lawyers are far more entertaining than some old guy talking about attorneys bringing potluck to negotiate the resolution of a lawsuit. 

    The question is this:  Do you want to pay for the entertainment of conflict or resolve it and move on with your plans to create a profitable future for your company and its employees.

    "Drunk Lawyer" is, after all, free on YouTube!

    Thanks to Cutting Edge Law for gathering together the Stu Webb and other videos on the revolution in legal practice that's being fomented right around the corner -- just about the time the BigLaw model fails along with dinosaurs like General Motors.

    You didn't hear it here first.  But you will hear it here often.

    This is the fourth video of this painful encounter on YouTube but it's the one in which the attorney is asked to "blow" a breathalyzer for the Court.



    Getting Your Opponent to the Bargaining Table without Appearing Weak

    Transparency Will Eliminate Unnecessary Wariness Between Parties (.pdf)

    from the April 1, 2009 Daily Journal



    By Victoria Pynchon

    As a mediator, the question I hear most frequently from lawyers is "How do I convince my opponent to sit down and negotiate without losing my competitive advantage?"

    Believe it or not, the answer is transparency.

    If you can remember way back to last July, when firms like Microsoft and Yahoo were still engaging in business as usual, you might recall that a merger fell apart because Yahoo was acting "weird." At least that's what Microsoft's chief executive, Steve Ballmer, told the Wall Street Journal.

    "We had an offer out that was a 100 percent premium on the operating business of the company and there wasn't a serious price negotiation ... until three months later. It was a little ... weird."

    Lawyers know that three months rushes by in the blink of an eye. The board of directors meets. It seeks an analysis from the mergers and acquisitions people, who consult with outside counsel's antitrust department, which renders a decision but whose members first have to chat with the tax guys. Then there are the IP people with whom to discuss license agreements and, of course, the managers in the human resources department, who may or may not have advice about executive parachutes - platinum, golden or brass.

    And yet the Yahoo-Microsoft merger fell apart because Microsoft felt that Yahoo's delay was "weird."

    Let's go back to what every trial lawyer knows. In the absence of information, people make stuff up. Weird stuff.

    And the stories we tell ourselves about our uncommunicative commercial partners do not include one where the other guy is laboring day and night to fulfill our fondest desires. No. In the absence of information, we weave elaborate conspiracy theories in which our opponents are scheming to fleece us of our rights, obstruct our prospective economic advantage and turn our world upside down.

    Your dentist can tell you what your opponent wants to be told. A fully illustrated pre-game outline of the upcoming procedure that goes something like this "First I'll put a little numbing cream on your gum. That way the shot of Novocain won't hurt too much. Then I'll drill," she'd say, holding the fearful appliance up and switching it on. "It may sound louder in your mouth than it does here in my hand, but I'll only have it on for about five minutes, after which ... etc., etc."

    So how do you get your opponent to the bargaining table without sounding weak?

    You say "Listen, Ted, I know both our clients believe their cases are as good as gold but after an initial round of discovery, it's my practice to call a timeout to discuss settlement."


    "How does that sound to you?"

    Ted says it sounds all right. Which it does. Because Ted's got three incredibly acrimonious cases in his practice right now. Last year, one of his adversaries served an ex parte application with three bankers boxes of exhibits the day before Christmas. At 4:59 p.m.  And she scheduled the hearing for hearing on the day after Christmas. Sure, the judge would deny it, but Ted couldn't assume anything. He worked 15 hours on Christmas Day.

    So it sounds good to Ted.

    More important to your own litigation plan, your opponent has just agreed to come to the bargaining table, even though the actual meeting won't be held for several months. When the appointed hour arrives, you will not have to ask for a settlement conference at a time when it might show weakness on your part. It's part of the plan.

    For the remainder of the article, click here.

    "Winning" the Negotiation with Insights from the Social Psychology of Conflict

    Pursuing a Divide and Conquer Negotiation Strategy? Don't Miss New California Case Law on Good Faith Settlement Findings

    Challenges to good faith settlements that cut off the rights of non-settling defendants to seek indemnification and contribution from settling defendants are nearly always doomed to failure.  Trial courts are understandably eager to clear their dockets and there's no docket-clean-up pitcher like the first defendant to settle.  Deny the motion and bring a settled defendant and his trial-ready resources back in to the litigation when the first defendant-domino has just successfully toppled over?   Not likely, my friend. Not in the trial court at any rate.

    These motions are so difficult to oppose that I've seen a target defendant threaten a marginal player (my client) with sanctions just for challenging the target's very low six-figure settlement in an eight-figure antitrust action.

    It looks like low value settlements got just a little bit harder to defend yesterday when the Second District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's good faith settlement finding in  Long Beach Memorial Medical Center v. Superior Court (Conners).

    Best quotation:  "The hospital contends that the physicians‟ $200,000 settlement -- representing 2 percent of plaintiffs‟ $10 million damages estimate -- was so far out of the “ballpark” it was not even in the parking lot."  With a first runner-up to "If section 877.6 is to serve the ends of justice, it must prevent a party from purchasing protection from its indemnification obligation at bargain-basement prices."

    The Court of Appeal relied upon the following "facts" in finding that the trial court abused its considerable discretion in granting a good faith motion to defendant physicians in light of defendant hospital's opposition.

    • payment of $200,000 in settlement for a $10 million claim, which the appellate court found to be "wholly disproportionate."  As the Court opined "[e]ven a slight probability of liability on [the settling doctor's] part would warrant a contribution more significant than 2 percent."
    •  the "evidence" supporting the court's finding that the settling physician's probable fault was "not de minimis,"  which appears to have been based upon Plaintiff's attorney's fault analysis (not generally known for its unbiased nature) and the physicians' counsel's candid (?) suggestion that his clients' contribution to a global settlement might be in the range of $1.5 million;
    • the availability of $2 million in coverage, which "militated against a good faith determination" because the settlement constituted only 10% of available policy limits [carrier alert here!];
    • the non-settling Hospital's contention that the physicians and their attorneys engaged in "bad faith tactics" during two mediation sessions -- a factor the appellate court acknowledged it was barred by mediation confidentiality from considering -- but which it neatly avoided by concentrating on post-mediation negotiations; /*
    • the timing of the physicians' settlement offer, which suggested to the appellate court that their "reason for entering into the settlement with plaintiffs was to cut off the hospital's . . .  right to indemnity from the physicians" (I thought that was a legitimate reason to settle litigation but see the Court's citation to Mattco Forge, stating that when a defendant  “enters into a disproportionately low settlement with the plaintiff solely to obtain immunity from the cross-complaint, the inference that the settlement was not made in good faith is difficult to avoid.” Mattco, supra (emphasis added); and,
    • a consideration I've never seen defeat a good faith motion before - that a settlment "dictated by the tactical advantage of removing a deep-pocket defendant . . . is not made in 'good faith' consideration of the relevant liability of all parties. . . ." (leading to the question whether we're now required to consider the interests of clients other than our own in entering into a settlement agreement on a contested claim)

    If this case isn't depublished (an unfortunate California practice) or taken up for review, it will bear re-reading and deeper thinking about the stategy and tactics of breaking away from the mob to cut a separate deal beneficial to one's own client without "consider[ing] . . the relevant liability of all parties . . . "

    Comments welcome!!



    */  This is a good place to note the importance of either indicating in the parties' post-mediation written negotiations that the mediation is continuing (hence the communications remain absolutely protected) or that the mediation has concluded (hence bringing those post-mediation settlement negotiations outside the scope of the strictly enforced mediation confidentiality restrictions).

    Your Negotiation Partner is Not Your Adversary

    Thanks to Diane Levin at the Mediation Channel for pointing me to a recent post by Ken Adams about the adversarial versus the "meeting of the minds" approach to contract drafting.  Thanks to both!

    Contracts as a Relationship-Building Tool

    That’s a long way from my let’s-have-a-meeting-of-the-minds approach. But I’m so buried in detail that I find it useful to be reminded periodically that contracts serve a broader function than mitigating your risk or handcuffing the other guy. I received just such a reminder in the form of this blog post by Douglas R. Griess of the Denver law firm Dymond Reagor Colville.

    Some people regard the contract process as an adversarial one. I encountered a great example of that recently: someone I’ve been corresponding with used the word “opponent” in referring to a lawyer representing the other side in a deal. When the other side is the enemy, you’re free to indulge in “creative ambiguity” and other shenanigans.

    Diane, who writes the best mediation blog in the country preceded my entry into the blogosphere by years.  She could have treated me like a competitor.  Instead, she taught me how to use html code (that's how long ago in blog years we "met"); hipped me to the folkways of the blogosphere; introduced me to her best professional contacts; and, all but baked me a hot apple pie.

    If it works here on the internet - collaboration instead of competition - which is where the 21st century is heading mind you -- online -- it should work equally well in all of our professional and business dealings, particularly as we struggle with the one big failing economy that will rise when one of us rises and fall again when one of us falls.

    Just sayin' . . . .

    Negotiating Legal Decisions

    I'm bookmarking this article.  I'll translate its main points from the academese to plain English this week-end along with insights on how to help your opponent make the legal decision you want him to make -- settle the case in the range of reason. 

    A Third View of the Black Box:  Cognitive Coherence in Legal Decision Making by Professor Dan Simon of the USC School of Law.

    And, somewhat off point but triggered by this image, an excerpt from Rilke's Letters to a Young Poet on the way in which wisdom eventually arrives:

    try to love the questions themselves as if they were locked rooms or books written in a very foreign language. Don't search for the answers, which could not be given to you now, because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps then, someday far in the future, you will gradually, without even noticing it, live your way into the answer.

    Negotiation as Poker Game

    Greater Negotiation Flexibility Results in Greater Anger?

    Thanks to Anne Reed at Deliberations for "tweeting" (@annereed) the article Flexible Approach To Acute Conflict Results In More Frustration and Anger, Study Shows.

    The research subject of the article suggested that having a more flexible approach to resolving an acute conflict interaction results in more frustration and anger.

    I'll need to see the study itself to be convinced.  The study described merely suggests that people offering a greater number of solutions to a party pre-instructed to stonewall will become angrier than those offering fewer solutions, i.e., that those who persist in trying, and failing, to resolve a conflict, get more and more angry and frustrated than those who give up more easily.

    This does not suggest to me that "greater negotiation flexibility" necessarily results in a greater degree of anger in the negotiation dyad, but only in the person attempting to resolve a dispute that his partner has been instructed to resist.  Though an apt description of the adversarial process, this is not a fair depiction of persistent attempts to negotiate resolution where the negotiators are given a fighting chance of closing a deal.

    As the article explained, study participants were told that a neighbor was playing music too loudly and instructed to ask that it be turned down.

    During the interaction, the [participants] followed a script of uncooperative responses such that the task could not be resolved.

    "We categorized the verbal responses of participants during the task into seven types of negotiation strategies, including problem-solving and aggressive/threatening. Individuals who used a smaller set of strategies were considered less 'flexible' than those who used a greater variety of strategies," Roubinov said.

    The [researchers] . . .  also looked at the intensity of participants' facial expressions of anger or frustration, and measured participants' biological response to the task using cortisol, a stress hormone.

    "Our results indicated that greater flexibility may not be the healthiest approach," Roubinov said. "Unlike less-flexible participants, those who tried a greater variety of responses showed more intense facial expressions of anger and frustration. Cortisol levels in more flexible participants also reflected an unhealthier biological response to stress than the less flexible participants."

    Of course persistent participants become increasingly frustrated (and angry!) when their multiple suggestions to resolve a dispute are met with stonewalling from their negotiation partner.  This doesn't suggest, however, that "greater [negotiation] flexibility" is not healthy.  It suggests that stonewalling leads to anger, one of the reasons that mediators are employed to help all participants in a negotiation generate potential solutions.

    I'll look forward to seeing the study when it's released but based upon this article, I'd say the conclusion drawn is misleading broad and unduly pessimistic.

    Negotiating Blind? What You Don't Know You Don't Know Can Hurt You

    Do you know?

    • the benefits of making the first offer?
    • how to frame an offer in a way it will be accepted?
    • how to deal with competitive negotiators?
    • how to break through impasse?
    • the ten cognitive biases that can cause you to leave money on the table?
    • how interest-based bargaining can increase negotiation options and result in a better deal?
    • when is the right time to make a bracketed offer?
    • what the pit-falls of mediator's proposals are?
    • what negotiation strategies are most effective when negotiating cross-culturally?
    • why you don't like to bargain?
    • how you can leverage your existing skills to enable you to successfully negotiate anything?
    • how to negotiate with difficult people?
    • why the other side is acting "irrationally" and what to do about it?

    Answer all these questions and more by attending the Pepperdine University Professional Skills Program.  Click on the image of the Pepperdine brochure for details.

    Don't Skimp on Negotiation Skills in the Downturn

    I've scaled my MCLE way back this year, including any continuing education that requires travel unless, of course, it's something I'm speaking at to continue growing my business.  Some MCLE courses, however, stay on my radar -- particularly those that don't require me to leave the office and that teach me skills to help me thrive in hard times.  This IP settlement webinar is one of those continuing education courses I'd attend unless I thought I was already the best settlement attorney I could be.  So seriously consider joining me and Chicago-IP lawyer extraordinaire R. David Donoghue of Holland + Knight for Hard Times? Learn How to Negotiate the Best IP Litigation Resolution

    ADR in IP Litigation from ALI-ABA

    Wednesday February 18, 2009 from 1:00-2:00 pm EST

    Why Attend?

    In a difficult economy, intellectual property protection and assertion is more important than ever. The combined stressors of a poor fiscal climate and shrinking legal budgets place a significant strain on any business dependent upon IP assets. as companies face difficult economic decisions, it is increasingly difficult to fit the expense and extended uncertainty of copyright, patent and trademark litigation into a forward looking business plan. This one-hour seminar explores the use of alternative dispute resolution as a means of protecting intellectual property and business activity, while minimizing the expense and devotion of time related to traditional IP litigation.

    What You Will Learn

    This program examines how to move an IP dispute toward alternative dispute resolution; best practices for controlling the expense and length of the process; and best practices for successful alternative dispute resolution. Whether you are an experienced IP practitioner or simply one grappling with IP issues in your general commercial practice, knowing how to offer your clients a wide array of ADR options might make the difference between a practice that survives and one that thrives. The seminar will cover the following topics:

    How to choose between litigation and ADR.

    • The most successful strategies for guiding your dispute into the best ADR forum at the most productive time.
    • The five basic rules of “distributive” or “fixed sum” bargaining that will give you the “edge” in all future settlement negotiations.
    • The five ways to “expand the fixed sum pie” by exploring and exploiting the client interests underlying your own and your opponents’ legal positions.
    • The Ten Mediation/Settlement Conference Traps for the Unwary.

    Invest just 60 minutes at your home or office to learn about alternative dispute resolution in the IP field from this duo of experts. This audio program comes to you live on Wednesday, February 18, 2009, 1:00-2:00 pm EST, via your phone or your computer. Materials corresponding to the course may be downloaded or viewed online.

    Negotiating Consumer Contracts Podcast with Marketplace

    Nice piece on negotiating just about anything -- gym memberships; flat screen TV's; watches at retail stores --  on Marketplace with a little opining on the issue by yours truly.

    Podcast:  Consumers Display Negotiating Nerve here.

    Excerpt below:

    KAI RYSSDAL: We're in what you might properly call a buyer's market. We saw it at Christmas with retailers all but giving things away just to get customers into their stores. And the worse the economy gets, the more it's true.

    It doesn't apply everywhere, of course. But if you want a better deal on your cable bill or your broadband Internet, nowadays all you have to do is ask.

    From Philadelphia, Joel Rose reports.

    JOEL ROSE: My friend Amy Voloshin is not what you'd call an intimidating negotiator.

    Amy Voloshin: I'm not really comfortable negotiating things. The only thing I've ever negotiated was my salary.

    Amy says she wasn't even trying to negotiate with the sales guy at her local gym. But that two-year contract . . . it was a big sticking point.

    Voloshin: I think I frowned. Then all of a sudden, it became a one-year commitment.

    Amy got the shorter commitment -- and unlimited yoga -- for less than she expected.

    TONY KIM: This is all upper body here . . .

    Tony Kim shows me around City Fitness in Philadelphia, where he's director of sales. Kim says the gym might have lost a few dollars on Amy. But it got a happy new customer who might spread the word to her friends.

    Kim: Hopefully, they'll come and see us. And see how just how honest we are, and how friendly we are. And they actually join, too.

    The evidence is strictly anecdotal. But experts say consumers nationwide are taking advantage of the recession by negotiating better deals on all kinds of stuff, from flat-screen TVs to cosmetic surgery to the rent on their apartments.

    VICTORIA PYNCHON: I think that if you reach the right person, you can negotiate anything in this economic climate.

    Victoria Pynchon is a Los Angeles attorney and blogger who specializes in mediation. She says successful negotiators do lots of research ahead of time. And they also make sure they're talking to someone in a position to make a deal. Often that's not the first person who answers the phone. Pynchon says it helps to know the industry jargon.

    Pynchon: I've found that the two words "customer retention" are a magic carpet ride to a good consumer deal. . . .

    Click on above link for full story.

    Tips for the Laid Off: Negotiate Your Severance

    From today's Wall Street Journal, Don't Buckle in Layoff -- timely advice for one of life's worst case scenarios - being made "redundant." 

    First piece of layoff wisdom:

    Negotiate Your Severance

    While not required to do so by law, many employers offer severance packages to laid-off employees. The package's size is usually based on the employee's length of service -- some are entitled to two weeks of pay, while more seasoned employees may receive as much as a year's worth.

    If you've been working at your company for only a year or two, there are ways to wring a little more pay from your employer. First, ask that any unused vacation days get tacked on to your final paycheck. (You can also try to do this with sick days, but it's often a long shot.) If you have a stellar record with the company, it's also worth asking for more severance pay or an extension of your health coverage.

    For the rest of the WSJ's timely tips, click here.

    And while we're on the topic of severance pay, here are a few tips about signing releases offered in connection with severance packages for those over forty.

    Know Your Rights If You're Offered Severance by WorkWise columnist Dr. Mildred L. Culp
    • Watch for undue pressure to sign release of claims when handed a severance package. "You must be given at least 21 days to think about the package," Milne states, "when you're terminated but not part of a group."
    • You must be given the option to revoke the waiver within seven days after you sign it. "This must be set out, in writing, in the release of claims," Milne notes.
    • You also have rights if severance accompanies a group layoff or early retirement program, he indicates. The ADEA stipulates a period of 45 days or more to make your decision, along with the seven-day revocation provision. 
    Milne says these requirements alone, unmet, won't give you enough to sue. However, if you have evidence of age discrimination, a signed release that doesn't follow ADEA guidelines won't block you from a bias claim.
    For full story, click on headline above.

    Pre-Trial Discovery Decreases Likelihood of Settlement

    From the Department of Counter-Intution we learn that our general assumption about pre-trial discovery -- that the open exchange of information will help align the expectations of disputants and increase efficiency by facilitating settlement /1 -- is probably inaccurate.

    In When Ignorance is Bliss:  Information, Fairness, and Bargaining Efficiency, George Loewenstein, Department of Social and Decision Sciences and Don A. Moore, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, at Carnegie Mellon University, tell us that when "information . . . is complex or ambiguous enough to allow for different interpretations" by opposing counsel,

    [s]elf-serving interpretations of fairness encourage biased estimations of the probability of prevailing in court and lead people to hold out too long, fight too hard, and settle too slowly.

    Simply put, because we interpret incoming information as confirming -- and often strengthening -  our existing views, the "convergence" of adversarial views pre-trial discovery proponents hoped for, does not occur.  Rather, discovery tends to increase the parties' belief in the rectitude of their analysis, thereby proportionally decreasing the potential for settlement.  As Loewenstein and Moore explained:

    In studies examining the self-serving bias, the magnitude of the bias was an extremely strong predictor of impasse, and two different manipulations that eliminated the bias led to close to 100 percent settlement compared to an impasse rate of about 25 percent in the absence of such debiasing.

    The full article is well worth reading even though much of it is burdened with academese.

    Because we attorneys pride ourselves on being able to "see the other side," here's an article entitled Confirmation Bias in Complex Analyses about a study in which intelligence analysts were provided with an analytic tool to help them overcome confirmation bias.  The tool -- Analysis of Competing Hypotheses -- was an

    hypothesis testing matrix,” where the rows represent the evidence, the columns the hypotheses under consideration, and the cells the extent to which each piece of evidence is consistent or inconsistent with each hypothesis. The goals of the ACH matrix [were meant] to overcome the memory limitations affecting one’s ability to keep multiple data and hypotheses in mind, and to break the tendency to focus on developing a single coherent story for explaining the evidence—a tendency which [other researchers] hypothesized create[d] predecision distortions (and presumably the confirmation bias).

    ACH [was] hypothesized to offset confirmation bias by ensuring that analysts actively rate evidence against multiple hypotheses and reminding analysts to focus on disconfirming evidence.

    Absent the template, the process sounds a lot like that we attorneys use to test our theories and evaluate those of our opponents'.  Alas ACH provided the least amount to help to those study participants with professional analytic experience.  As the authors report, "ACH had no impact at all" on the professional analysts' tendency to give greater weight to the evidence that supported their theories and less to that which disconfirmed them.

    What to do?  I'll attempt to find an answer before writing my next post.


    Loewenstein and Moore quote Richard Posner on this expectation as follows: 

    a full exchange of information…is likely to facilitate settlement by enabling each party to form a more accurate, and generally therefore a more convergent, estimate of the likely outcome of the case.

    Richard A. Posner (1986:525) Economic Analysis of Law (3rd ed. Little, Brown 1986)

    Litigation, Negotiation, Mediation, Oh My! The CharonQC Podcast

    It's the British, of course, who we have to thank for the common law, the adversarial system of justice and that most lyrical denunciation of lawyers' passionate pursuit of legal procedure, Bleak House.  Charon QC is a serial podcaster, writer and producer of the satiric online soap opera West London Man, founder of the largest private law school in Great Britain, and all around QC about town.

    My postcast interview with the great QC is here and his own is below.

    Podcast 94: US lawyer Victoria Pynchon on ADR, mediation and settlement in the USA

    Today I am talking to Victoria Pynchon, a US lawyer based in Los Angeles, California. She was a commercial litigator and trial attorney for 24 years before shifting her practice from representing clients in court to helping lawyers settle lawsuits hat involve greater risk, expense or time than their clients wish to expend. She this work through Judicate West Dispute Resolution Services, serves as a private judge (arbitrator) for the American Arbitration Association, is an adjunct professor at Pepperdine University and blogs at IP ADR and Settle it now. Interestingly Vickie also acts as a sherpa for Blawg Review the international rolling carnival of law bloggers and is on Twitter.

    So who is Charon QC?  Let him tell you himself in this Podcast Interview at Family Lore, the blog of British family law attorney John Bolch.  To get an even better idea of Charon QC and the many reasons to read his blog, I give you his own introduction to himself at Charon QC the Blawg.

    “Charon QC” is a lawyer, after a fashion, but is not a practitioner. He has taught law for many years - and, to his surprise, still enjoys law; although he enjoys other academic interests as well. Law is fascinating more in the human interest than the letter, but compared to literature, science or philosophy, it does not engage the mind in quite the same way. He awarded himself the title QC when the Lord Chancellor suspended the award for real lawyers. Now, as no-one can instruct him in any matter, or would wish to, he is free to comment as he wishes on matters which catch his attention. He is, of course, a figment of a febrile imagination . He drinks Rioja - in fact he will drink any red wine, smokes Silk cut, reads all the newspapers (3 Tabloids 4 broadsheets…most days) , has a passion for motorbikes and sips espressos three time a day - ordering two each time. He sleeps for 4 hours a night - but that is his problem. He gets up and starts work (sometimes, it has to be said… writing a blog post) between 3.30 - 4.00 every morning…

    He is also a habitue of The Bollo and The Swan in Chiswick/Acton - and some other well known bars in London. When he finds a meal he enjoys - he eats it every day until he can no longer face eating it again. At breakfast, he always has one egg, two slices of toast, two slices of bacon, some baked beans, two espressos, a glass of tap water and an undisclosed number of Silk Cut cigarettes - and always starts eating the egg first… on a bit of buttered toast; turning the plate around so the egg is conveniently on the right hand side of the plate. He did not know he did this until it was pointed out to him by several friends. Breakfast takes approximately 35 minutes and is often taken while reading his tabloid of choice and The Indie… and then it is but a short motorbike ride back to his Staterooms where the day can begin. Breakfast is at 7.00 and more often than not Charon sits at a table outside - even in very cold weather - so he can keep an eye on the world as it goes by. He can also smoke outside without offending other early risers.

    Negotiating with Pirates: Squeeze Every Penny Out of the Deal

    In Hijacked on the High Seas When Somali Pirates Attacked, They Kicked Off 56 Days of Drama Over the Fate of a Ship and 28 Crewmen, The Wall Street Journal details the negotiation strategy and tactics that resulted in the release of the hijacked ship and its crew.

    (pirate photo from the cat dirl sez blog)

    Excerpt below - "Mr. Christodoulou," the shipping company's negotiator, called himself "Gus."

    Mr. Christodoulou made an initial offer, which he declines to reveal. The Somali negotiators -- first a man named Hussein, then another who called himself Abbas -- took the offer to the pirates. They called back the next day with a response.

    "Hey Mr. Gus, the Somali gentlemen say the money is very less," Abbas said, according to Mr. Christodoulou. "They need more money."

    Mr. Christodoulou didn't budge. The Somalis needed to feel they had squeezed every dollar out of the ship's owners, he had been advised, so he shouldn't increase his offer early.

    "We want you to get the money and move onto another project," Mr. Christodoulou recalls saying. "But you have to understand, we have our limitations."

    The conversations continued daily through December, with little progress. By the end of the month, the families in India were feeling desperate...

    Tom Rozycki, Mr. Christodoulou's public-relations adviser, says he decided a new approach was needed to keep the families hopeful -- and away from the media. Publicity could empower the captors and delay the hostages' release, he believed. It would also be embarrassing for the company, making it even more difficult to face the families.

    On Jan. 6, at the Hyatt Regency Hotel near Mumbai's international airport, Mr. Christodoulou met with the families of the crewmen.

    Seeing Mr. Sharma's hunger-striking grandmother in the front row, he knelt beside her and held her hand. "Granny, your grandson is going to get out. And we want him to get out and come back to the healthy loving family that he left," he said, according to Mrs. Sharma and Mr. Christodoulou. That night, Mrs. Sharma ate some strawberry ice cream, her son recalls.

    By mid-January, the pirates on the Biscaglia were growing frustrated. "They told us they were going to take us off the ship and hide us in the mountains," Mr. Khan, the crewman, says. The pirates gave him and the others a mobile phone to call home. "We all told our families that unless the company gave more money, we would be killed," Mr. Khan says.

    Mr. Kapade, the chief engineer, says he realized the pirates were trying to pressure the company by terrifying the crew. When he spoke to his wife on Jan. 14, he lowered his voice and spoke in Hindi. "Pass on to others that we're fine," he whispered.

    By then, Mr. Christodoulou says, he thought it was time to raise his offer. He declines to say what he offered, but says it was close to what he thought the Somalis would accept based on the range provided to him by experts: $700,000 to $3 million.

    He set about trying to raise the money. He approached his own company's biggest investor, Regent Private Capital LLC, a private-equity firm based in Tulsa, Okla. Lawrence Field, Regent Private Capital's managing director, declined to discuss the conversation with Mr. Christodoulou. "Regent does not negotiate with terrorists or pirates or any kind of criminal," he said on Friday.

    That evening, Mr. Christodoulou called Per Gullestrup, the Danish chief executive officer of Clipper A/S, a larger competitor in the chemical-transport industry. The two men hadn't known one another until both had vessels hijacked by Somalis. They had often commiserated.

    Mr. Christodoulou told Mr. Gullestrup he was struggling to raise the funds. A few days later, Mr. Gullestrup called back. "We'd be happy to advance the money if that's what it takes," he said. That promise allowed Mr. Christodoulou to secure a loan for the purpose.

    Buoyed by that success, Mr. Christodoulou decided to apply some pressure. He raised his offer slightly, he says, and told the negotiator: "You have 24 hours to accept this offer, or we have to retract it."

    Over the next 24 hours, the two sides exchanged at least 20 phone calls. "Mr. Gus, this isn't enough money for the Somali gentlemen," the negotiator said several times, according to Mr. Christodoulou.

    The next day, Mr. Christodoulou went a little higher, he says. At 12:30 p.m. on Jan. 16, Abbas called back: "The Somalis accept your offer. Thank you very much. It's really been a pleasure to work with you on this project."

    Negotiating Foreclosure

    If you live in Ohio, there's some hope that you can negotiate your way out of foreclosure with a Court-annexed foreclosure mediation program.  See Foreclosure filings rise in five counties at the the Crescent News. Excerpt below.

    UPDATE:  Connecticut also has a foreclosure mediation program: See
    Success For Mortgage Mediation in Connecticut?

    In the period of July 1st to November 30th, there were 9,917 foreclosures filed in the state, an average of 450 cases per week.  In that period, mediators successfully negotiated 519 cases so that homeowners got to remain in their homes.  This is just slightly over 5% of all cases filed.  Only 380 cases or 3.83% resulted in a modification of the mortgage terms.  Despite the hard work of Connecticut’s mediators, the state’s residents are not being protected from foreclosure.

    UPDATE:  You can find a podcast about the New Jersey foreclosure mediation program on the New Jersey Law Blog here!  Here's the New Jersey Court's material for that program.

    UPDATE:  Thanks to the ABA Dispute Resolution Magazine for informing us that Minnesota now also has a foreclosure mediation program.  See Minnesota Law Offers Foreclosure Mediation to Homeowners at the Foreclosure Listings blog here.

    UPDATE:  Foreclosure Mediation Programs Commenced Under Local Ordinance in Providence, Rhode Island: Providence Foreclosure Ordinance Aims to Protect Renters (excerpt below):

     PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) - In an effort to protect families from foreclosure, Providence Mayor David Cicilline unveiled two ordinances Monday morning during a news conference in the city's Olneyville neighborhood.

    The first proposal, Tenants Protection Against Foreclosures Ordinance , is meant to protect renters from eviction when their apartments are subject to foreclosure proceedings.

    A proposed state law, that would have provided similar requirements, failed in the General Assembly last year. Rhode Island Housing Executive Director Richard Godfrey applauded Providence for stepping in to provide that protection.

    The second proposal, Foreclosure Mediation Ordinance , would require financial institutions and property owners to engage in mediation with a HUD-approved counselor before moving ahead with a foreclosure.

    UPDATE:  Lawsuit stops eviction in predatory lending case in California here.

    "We have a court adjunct mediation program," said Schmenk. "The worst thing people can do is do nothing. The best thing is to get an answer filed on their behalf and open up a discussion with the mortgage holder to avoid it going to the foreclosure sale. Often times they can get something worked out with the lending institution short of losing their home."

    When a foreclosed home goes up for auction bids start at two-thirds of the property's appraised value.

    "Most time the lenders are holding significantly more than that in debt," said Schmenk. "We've noticed in a number of cases things get worked out and they are able to enter into some kind of accommodation that works for lender and mortgage borrower."

    Schmenk encourages individuals facing foreclosure to take part in mediation programs.

    There was a mediation just last week in Defiance County, said Cheryl Timbrook of the common pleas court. Overall, she said that they haven't had many requests for mediation so far.

    Sonnenberg said Henry County has had a mediation program available for foreclosure for a year. She said there has been an increase in requests for mediation since the court started sending out information about the program as well as how to file an answer to the foreclosure summons received by defendants.

    "I don't think many people knew about it before," she said.

    Chris DelFavero, mediation coordinator for the state's Northwest Ohio Court Mediation Services, said he's seen an increase in individuals asking for foreclosure mediation. Northwest Ohio Court Mediation Services covers Henry, Defiance, Fulton, Paulding, Williams and Putnam counties. The program started last spring.

    "With the help of the (Ohio) Supreme Court we established a process for referrals through the (county) clerk's offices," said DelFavero, who added that referrals started to pick up this summer. "Last month I had the most referrals since we started. I had 11 referred this past month. We started with just two or three a month, and now we have two a week."

    DelFavero said that many cases involve jumps in interest rates, causing payments to increase or individuals who have seen a decrease in pay.

    "Those are the cases we hopefully can resolve and come up with a repayment plan or refinance their rates," he said. "The general problem in the industry was the subprime rates. Some of it is the economy, with people losing their overtime. Sometimes loans are given based on people making $40,000 and then they lose their overtime so now they are making $30,000. They are working, but may have fallen four to five months behind. The lender usually will work with them."

    Devil in the Details: the Deal, the Whole Deal and Nothing But the Deal

    It's getting very late in hour eleven of the mediation and everyone is tired and cranky.  We've agreed upon:

    • the total sum of the settlement;
    • the period of time over which the settlement will be paid;
    • the Stipulated Judgment in the event of default; and,
    • the amount of the Stipulated Judgment (far more than the agreed upon settlement sum).

    We could put these terms in a skeletal settlement agreement right now; include the "magic language" from Evidence Code section 1123 that will permit enforcement of the mediated agreement; and, let everyone get on the road, onto a plane and into bed.

    Because these parties couldn't agree on what year it is, however, no one balks at my suggestion that we write up the entire deal -- settlement agreement with mutual general releases; the Stipulation for the Entry of Judgment; and, the proposed Stipulated Judgment itself.

    The first problem is everyone's failure to bring a form Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, let alone one that included enforceable terms for the entry of a Stipulated Judgment in event of default.   

    ADVICE???  Carry these documents on a "flash" or "jump" drive whenever you're going to a settlement conference or mediation.  Heck, carry them with you to the first day of trial where you might be startled to learn that your adversary is prepared to settle the case right now!

    Fortunately, I had access to my own files which contained detailed forms for everything we needed, forms I offered to counsel as guides. I did so only with the express understanding that I did not recommend my own forms as adequate, complete or enforceable.  

    I'm just the mediator, not the legal representative of the deal in loco parentis.

    It's a good thing we made the effort to fully document the deal because it threatened to fall apart over all of the following terms:

    • the dismissal of ancillary proceedings
    • forbearance from inducing future actions by non-parties
    • liquidated damage clauses for the breach of certain critical deal points
    • indemnification for future actions if induced by certain of the parties

    Each of these items required separate negotiation and compromise and as to each I helped the parties calculate the degree of possible misbehavior by their adversaries and the protections that might "fit" the probable harm.  I do not believe the parties would have been able to resolve these terms (as well as others too confidential to mention) without third party assistance.  One was so difficult to predict both the series of possible events and potential remedies that we provided for arbitration of that term alone in the event of alleged default.

    When we all finally left the building at one in the morning, we had fully completed paperwork, signed by all parties in hand. 

    And yes, I was the only one present who could type.


    Devil in the Details: Sticker Term Shock

    The anger, suspicion and ill will that has characterized the first eight hours of this mutli-party, eight-figure antitrust mediation is about to heightened as I deliver Defendants' terms:  they will pay the settlement agreed upon in six equal yearly installments over three full years without any security to back it up.

    Are you wondering what your mediator is thinking at times like this?


    That "thought" is momentary, however, like the cry you squelch when the trial judge does something like, say, grant the other side's motion to disqualify your expert witness during the second week of trial. 

    I don't have a plan, but I do have ideas.  Just as my suggestion that we use a bracketed offer to break impasse had eventually done just that, I'm already thinking of ways that the parties' most intractable and conflicting positions might move them toward agreement.

    "They can wait," defense counsel is saying, "or they can try the case in February and see if they can collect it," to which a principal adds,  "this puts them on our side for a change.  If we make the money we believe we can, they'll benefit too."

    "I thought you said you knew you could," I say, laying groundwork for the contingency ahead. 

    "Yes, absolutely.  We know we can."

    Back in the Plaintiffs' caucus room, the parties and their counsel aren't simply angry; they're flabbergasted.

    "They sand-bagged us," says Plaintiffs' counsel.  "We'll report this to the Judge.  They didn't come here in good faith.  They're deliberately wasting our time."  

    After some calming discussion about why the cash-poor defense would deliberately pay their own attorney and one-half of my daily fee in bad faith . . . a question to which no answer ever eventuated . . . Plaintiffs and their counsel begin to confidently predict the defense's inability to make a single installment payment.  Plaintiffs believe the defendants have resources - secreted away somewhere - but will never use them to settle this case.

    When the temperature of the room has diminished to that of the sun's surface rather than its core, I ask about the possibility of a stipulated judgment in the event of default. 

    "In a sum you hope the jury will award you at trial," I proffer.  "If you're right; if they have no intention, nor any ability, to pay even the first installment, you'll be in the same position on default that you'd be in if you prevailed at trial.  And if they're capable of paying, they're much more likely to do so if the alternative is a mutl-million dollar judgment against them."

    Though the total sum of the Stipulated Judgment is the main topic of discussion over the following two hours, the parties' insistent conflicting predictions for the future make it all but inevitable they will eventually reach agreement.  If the defense never pays, the Plaintiffs will have their judgment more or less immediately, without the burden of proving it up.  And if the defendants are good for their word that they can service the "debt" the settlement agreement creates, they never have to worry about this potential judgment becoming a reality. 

    The Stipulated Judgment as Contingency Contract

    As Professor Leigh Thompson of the Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, writes in The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator, the contingencies built into the parties' agreement (and the Stipulated Judgment providing for its enforcement) permit them to use their differences to reach agreement - betting on their own predictions for the future and protecting themselves against their worst fears about the other.  As Professor Thompson instructs:

    Often, a major obstacle to reaching negotiated agreements concerns negotiators' beliefs about some future event or outcome.  Impasses often result from conflicting beliefs that are difficult to surmount, especially when each side is confident about the accuracy of his or her prediction and consequently uspicious of the other side's forecasts.  Often, compromise is not a viable solution, and each party may be reluctant to change his or her point of view.

    Fortunately, contingent contracts can provide a way out of the mire.  With a contingency . . . differences of opinion among negotiators concerning future events do not have to be bridged; they become the core of the agreement. . . . [Parties] can bet on the future rather than argue about it.

    Here, the agreement calling for a Stipulated Judgment of sufficient size to deter default, allowed the parties to:

    1. bet on rather than argue about their different forecasts for the future;
    2. manage their decision-making biases (overconfidence and egocentrism) by building them into the settlement agreement itself;
    3. solve the trust problem by creating a contingency (judgment) against the unknown ability of the defendants to perform
    4. diagnose the other side's honesty by "daring" him to bet on his own predictions
    5. reduce risk through sharing the upside gain (defendant will pay) and the potential loss (defendant will default)
    6. increase defendants' incentive to perform at or above contractually specified levels.

    See The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator, The Six Benefits of Contingency Contracts, Box 8-2.

    There's more, however.  The parties agree to the Stipulated Judgment in principle and sum during hour eleven and we've got three more hours to go.

    Stay tuned!


    The Devil in the Details: When Do You First Talk Terms?

    As you'll recall, we're in hour nine of the mediation.  The parties have finally agreed to settle the antitrust litigation the Court ordered them to mediate ("we won't settle; we'll only be here for an hour"). 

    Defense counsel wants to write up the "deal points" and make a quick getaway.  Before she does so, we have the following conversation.

    "We'll need three years to pay it."

    I fake calm.

    "Your security?" I ask, my mind racing to the other room where an already unhappy set of plaintiffs are sitting.

    "We don't have security.  I told you my clients are broke.  I also told you we'd need terms but you didn't want to talk about them."

    This is true.  From hour one the defense insisted they'd need to pay over time and the Plaintiffs wanted to know what terms the defense was thinking of.  Throughout the day I'd told them both the same thing:  "let's see if we can agree on a number before we start talking terms."

    I have reasons for this.  They are as follows:

    • once people have agreed upon a number, it's far more difficult for them to walk away from a deal; the Plaintiffs have already begun to think about what the money will mean to them and the defense has begun to imagine life without the litigation;
    • people are risk averse.  So long as there is no (or only minimal) money on the table, it's easy to refuse to engage in the often difficult process of readjusting their expectations and compromising their desires.  When there's enough money on the table to make both parties want to settle, walking away involves loss.  

    This is often the trickiest part of the mediation.  The three-year time table and absence of security is, I know, enough to blow up this deal.  I'm going to take heat from the Plaintiffs' side, for resisting their efforts to learn the Defendants' terms before they spent an entire day agreeing upon the price.  I don't, however, regret my decision.  If these terms cause the negotiation to break down now, they certainly would have done so in hour one.

    How I help the parties negotiate what is poised to become a rancorous impasse in the next post.


    You've Settled? With a Term Sheet? The Devil in the Details

    It's 8 p.m. and you've just spent nine straight hours negotiating the settlement of complex commercial litigation with multiple parties that was filed before George Bush first took office.  The case has been up on appeal twice and is now scheudled for trial in February.  All defendants but the final three standing have settled.   Three of the principals have flown in from out of state and two of the attorneys have driven a few hundred miles to Los Angeles from their home towns. 

    "Let's just write up the deal points," says Lawyer No. 1, yawning.  "We can write up the full agreement over the long weekend."

    Lawyer No. 2 turns to me and says "Judicate West has a form, right?  Let's use that."

    Before we go further, let me give you the complete, verbatim language of the online skeletal Judicate West form.


    Stipulation for Settlement


    IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through the respective counsel or representative of each that the above-referenced case has been settled according to the terms memorialized herein below.  This document is binding on the parties and is admissible in court pursuant to Evidence code section 1123 and enforceable by motion of any party hereto pursuant to CCP section 664.6.                                                                                   

    In order to facilitate the above specified terms of settlement, the parties further agree that on or before the          day of          they will execute or change the following:

    • Settlement / Release Agreement   Prepared by _____plaintiff_____defendant

    • Request for Dismissal     Prepared by _____plaintiff_____defendant


    All relevant parties must sign below.  Copies are acceptable in lieu of originals.

    I know.  You didn't expect the case to settle.  At least that's what I've been hearing you all tell me since hour one of the mediation.  But now we're in hour nine and the basic deal points have been reached.  It's January 15.  Trial is in 30 days.  You have all the parties present and the mediator who has by now sussed out the BS; developed a good working relationship with all sides of the dispute; knows how hard the parties worked to get here; and, is unlikely to let the "devil" in the details sink the settlement ship.

    What do you do?

    My own answers in next post.

    The Forthright Negotiator "Rule" and Creative Ambiguity at Adams Drafting

    Anyone who's been living in outer Mongolia for the past couple of years should head on over to Adams Drafting straight away.  Why?  Because once you negotiate the best deal you can, you have to write it up on the best terms you can.  Hence the need -- yes need -- for Adams' Drafting.

    Today Ken Adams addresses a "rule" that one Court has dubbed "Forthright Negotiator" and the rest of us have always understood to be . . . well . . . the law, i.e., that one's subjective intent can be used to interpret an ambiguous contract term so long as that intent has been objectively manifested.

    This gives Ken Adams an opportunity to address the question whether it's ever beneficial to purposely include ambiguity in your contracts -- a question I'd answer after nearly a quarter century of contract litigation practice with this -- sure, if you'd like to put my husband's and my grandchildren through prep school and college.  Otherwise, not so much.

    But don't take it from me.  Go see what the master of contract drafting says.


    Five Negotiation Rules to Beat the Recession Blues

    Before you start bargaining your way through the current recession, you need to decide which of your expenses might be negotiable.

    Your office or residential rent?  I have friends who have successfully negotiated reductions mid-lease on the strength of their desirability as tenants and good relationships with their landlord. 

    Over dinner with friends last night, I learned that a local shopping mall recently agreed to renovate the commercial space of one of its major department store tenants in exchange for the store's promise to renew its lease at the end of this year on existing terms. 

    When I asked my twitter network what recurring expenses they'd like to reduce this year, I got answers on everything from diapers (@mglickman) to flat Westlaw fees (@dtoddsmith).  And though she rejected their offer, attorney Jeena R. Belil provided an excellent example of an integrative negotiation tactic - offer more value for the same price -- here, the Yellow pages offering to provide her with a half-page ad at the quarter-page price (@jeenaesq).

    So, make a list of expenses that make your monthly "nut" difficult to crack during a down economy.  Even if you believe these expenses to be non-negotiable, give it a try.  You've got nothing whatsoever to lose by asking.  

    And once you enter negotiations, here are five rules from the Harvard Negotiation Project to speed you on your way to a more economical year.

    1. Don’t Bargain Over Positions
    Most of us begin negotiation by identifying a position and arguing for it, such as: “I want to retain the CEO title.” But such positional bargaining can limit your ability to arrive at a “wise agreement” that benefits both parties — the proverbial middle ground and the whole purpose of negotiation. Instead of thinking of a “position,” identify the goal. You want remuneration for the sweat you put into your company. You want, for example, status (to remain CEO). But a specific position is binary — you either get it or you don’t. A goal can be attained in many ways, giving you many more options for arriving at a solution.

    2. Separate the People From the Problem
    Most negotiation is emotional. You want something, after all. And emotion clouds our objectivity. But you can limit the emotional content of your negotiation by thinking of the person you’re talking to as your partner and the problem you’re trying to solve as an object. Take, for example, the question of how much a company’s equity is worth. In this case, you’re not negotiating against the investor over a position, you’re engaged with that person to arrive at the right answer to the question. Some will urge you to make your negotiation opponent a partner, but this can lead to Stockholm Syndrome. Instead just think of engaging the other person, using their input to arrive at the right answer. Maintain your independence.

    3. Focus on Interests

    We all have interests. The pursuit to fulfill our interests leads up to adopt positions. But bargaining for stated positions, such as titles, will not necessarily produce a wise agreement that takes care of the interests that led you to adopt the positions in the first place. Think instead: I want to remain engaged in the business. There are many ways to achieve goals without having specific positions.

    4. Invent Options for Mutual Gain
    This is the creative part. You must examine each other’s interests to come up with options in which both parties gain. Your investors have an interest in a pro-CEO who can sell into large corporations (you’ve never done that). You need funding, but also want to remain engaged. Both parties can draft a list of options for your new role that satisfy everyone’s needs: COO, president, chief innovation officer, etc. Negotiate from this list.

    5. Insist on Using Objective Criteria

    We all have personal standards. CEO conveys more status than chairman, etc. The key is to let go of personal standards in favor of objective ones upon which both parties can agree. (Think of the
    Kelley Blue Book, a set of agreed-upon standards for those looking to buy or sell a car). But here you have to do some real homework and investigate the objective standards that apply to your negotiation ahead of time. Some to consider: market value; legal or business precedent; scientific judgments (patents); efficiency; and reciprocity.


    Do You Need to Understand Your Legal Rights to Serve Your Interests?

    Daily Journal Newswire Articles
    © 2009 The Daily Journal Corporation. All rights reserved.

    FORUM (FORUM & FOCUS)  •  Jan. 08, 2009
    Every Case Is a Winding Road


    By Victoria Pynchon

    I have a confession to make. I am about to become embroiled in litigation. Though I preach the religion of negotiated resolution, I've nevertheless hired litigation counsel to assert my rights and pursue my remedies.

    This is one of those moments when the rubber of our ideology meets the road of personal circumstance, the moment we are called upon to decide to walk our talk or take the more familiar road.

    For more than 30 years - first as paralegal, then as a law student and finally as a commercial litigator - I'd been swimming in the waters of legal rights and remedies. The adversarial ocean had become so familiar a habitat that it rarely occurred to me that I was under the surface. One day toward the end of my first year of mediation practice, a much more experienced friend hooked me by the cheek and threw me on the deck of his ship, where I was gasping for air.

    He'd asked me to co-mediate a will contest without the benefit on my clergy - lawyers with experience in the field. The "fish out of water" conversation that ensued went something like this:

    Joe Mediator: "The family doesn't want to hire a lawyer. They just want to mediate."

    Vickie: "But I know absolutely nothing about wills, trusts and estates. The parties need to talk to a lawyer first to learn their rights and remedies."

    Joe: "You still don't get it, do you?"

    Vickie: "Get what?"

    Joe: "It's not about rights and remedies. It's about interests."

    Vickie: "But how can they evaluate their interests without knowing their rights and remedies?"

    Joe: "Because they're not interested in what the law says - they want to do what they believe is right for them as a family under the circumstances."

    These people wanted to resolve a legal dispute without knowing their legal rights? Were they nuts? I understood "interests" - they were all the rage in ADR circles - the desires, fears and needs of the parties that drove them to take legal positions. Sometimes those interests were non-economic - the need for revenge, the desire to be personally accountable, the fear of failure, the hope for forgiveness and reconciliation. Others, though economic, could not be remedied by way of damages - better access to foreign markets, for instance, or wider distribution chains; the acquisition of better manufacturing processes; or, the retention of executives with "pull" in Washington. But all of those matters were secondary to legal rights and remedies, weren't they? You had to know what your rights were.

    To read entire article, click here.

    Here's a .pdf of the article taken from the "hard copy" of the paper.


    Conflict: It's ALL Cross-Cultural

    There's a great new LinkedIn Group Mediators and Peacemakers that anyone interested in the dynamics of conflict and its resolution should think about joining.  Recently, a group member posed this question:

    How do you as a mediator recognize the signs of cross cultural differences and how do you resolve that type of dispute? How often do you come across this type of dispute?

    I was thinking about how I might answer it when I noticed that my colleague and friend, mediation guru Lee Jay Berman, had taken the time to jot down his thoughts, which were better than any I was having, yet precisely expressed my own experience mediating conflict.

    Here's what Lee Jay had to say:

    I think that some is easy to recognize, like two Korean businessmen walking in with their counsel, knowing that they will have a value system that is based around how Korean businesses conduct themselves, and knowing that trying to overlay that onto an American legal system is going to be awkward for them.

    But my belief is that NEARLY ALL conflicts are cross-cultural. The vast majority of what I see as cross-cultural conflicts don't present themselves as such at first glance because they may occur between two people of the same color skin, same nationality, same faith and even same family. I think we risk falling into the belief that cross cultural disputes only exist when we have people of different racial cultures at the table. We sometimes think we can turn our cross-cultural radar off when both people sitting there look the same to us. But to me, most conflict comes from different cutltural perspectives, different expectations based on how we were raised and what they see as "normal" or how people "should" conduct themselves.

    The example I live with is that my wife and I were both raised Jewish, both families grew up with Christmas trees in our homes, too. We both went to UCLA, we both love sports, and the list goes on and on. When we married, we had the expectation that we would be relatively the same when it came to living our lives together. But when it came to communication styles, especially around disputes or disagreements, what we each learned from our families (the tribes in which we were raised and where we learned our norms) could not have been more different. Early in our marriage, this created constant cross-cultural disputes, which turned into conflict because of the assumptions we each made about what was the "normal" way to deal with disagreements. On paper, most people would never say that my wife and I were cross-cultural, but in real life, we had a huge cross-cultural rift that was invisible to most, and even to us at first.

    The moral of this story is that we must ALWAYS be looking for evidence of cross-cultural issues, even when they don't present with different skin color.

    It's Not About the Money; It's About Justice

    I'd stop flogging this dead horse if I didn't have to weekly convince litigants of their own enduring human tendency to prefer relative well-being over absolute material possessions.

    This week, that "news" is brought to you by the New York Times to explain why a surprising number of us have not been made terribly unhappy as our financial fortunes decline.  As Op-Ed contributor Sonja Lyubomirsky (of The How of Happiness: A Scientific Approach to Getting the Life You Want) observes today:

    the economists David Hemenway and Sara Solnick demonstrated in a study at Harvard, many people would prefer to receive an annual salary of $50,000 when others are making $25,000 than to earn $100,000 a year when others are making $200,000.

    Why? Because we "care more about social comparison, status and rank than about the absolute value of our bank accounts or reputations."  In other words, we're more concerned with justice (fairness) than we are about the money.  Which is why our clients have sought out our help with their personal, financial and commercial problems -- because we're in the justice business.  When we understand this, the negotiation of financial settlements becomes a whole lot easier because there are many more ways to deliver justice than by throwing money at it.  

    Read the full (short) article Why We’re Still Happy here.



    For Your Attorney Holiday Book Gift List: Conflict Revolution

    e-Bleak House: Twitter "Tweets" Discoverable

    From E-discovery implications of Twitter at Lawyers USA

    The social networking site Twitter.com allows users just 140 characters to describe what the user is up to – a post known as a "tweet."

    But lawyers advising clients on e-discovery or using Twitter themselves need to realize that tweets are discoverable.

    "Twitter posts are like any other electronically stored information," explained Douglas E. Winter, a partner at Bryan Cave in Washington, D.C. and head of the firm's Electronic Discovery unit. "They are discoverable and should therefore be approached with all appropriate caution."The increasing popularity of Twitter has made electronic discovery even more complicated.

    Litigators!  Remember, you and your opponent(s) have a choice. It's not only in arbitration that you can make your own law, but by way of stipulated case management orders cooperatively crafted with an eye toward relative cost and likely benefit (ask me for a template!)

    I don't need to tell you that clients are cutting back in 2009.  The litigation practice that thrives will be the most efficient and effective dispute resolution vehicle on the road.

    And now, for your moment of zen - Charlie Dickens.

    Jarndyce and Jarndyce drones on. This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least, but it has been observed that no two Chancery lawyers can talk about it for five minutes without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises. Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable young people have married into it; innumerable old people have died out of it. Scores of persons have deliriously found themselves made parties in Jarndyce and Jarndyce without knowing how or why; whole families have inherited legendary hatreds with the suit. The little plaintiff or defendant who was promised a new rocking-horse when Jarndyce and Jarndyce should be settled has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world. Fair wards of court have faded into mothers and grandmothers; a long procession of Chancellors has come in and gone out; the legion of bills in the suit have been transformed into mere bills of mortality; there are not three Jarndyces left upon the earth perhaps since old Tom Jarndyce in despair blew his brains out at a coffee-house in Chancery Lane; but Jarndyce and Jarndyce still drags its dreary length before the court, perennially hopeless.

    Jarndyce and Jarndyce has passed into a joke. That is the only good that has ever come of it. It has been death to many, but it is a joke in the profession. Every master in Chancery has had a reference out of it. Every Chancellor was "in it," for somebody or other, when he was counsel at the bar. Good things have been said about it by blue-nosed, bulbous-shoed old benchers in select port- wine committee after dinner in hall. Articled clerks have been in the habit of fleshing their legal wit upon it. The last Lord Chancellor handled it neatly, when, correcting Mr. Blowers, the eminent silk gown who said that such a thing might happen when the sky rained potatoes, he observed, "or when we get through Jarndyce and Jarndyce, Mr. Blowers"--a pleasantry that particularly tickled the maces, bags, and purses.

    How many people out of the suit Jarndyce and Jarndyce has stretched forth its unwholesome hand to spoil and corrupt would be a very wide question. From the master upon whose impaling files reams of dusty warrants in Jarndyce and Jarndyce have grimly writhed into many shapes, down to the copying-clerk in the Six Clerks' Office who has copied his tens of thousands of Chancery folio-pages under that eternal heading, no man's nature has been made better by it. In trickery, evasion, procrastination, spoliation, botheration, under false pretences of all sorts, there are influences that can never come to good. The very solicitors' boys who have kept the wretched suitors at bay, by protesting time out of mind that Mr. Chizzle, Mizzle, or otherwise was particularly engaged and had appointments until dinner, may have got an extra moral twist and shuffle into themselves out of Jarndyce and Jarndyce. The receiver in the cause has acquired a goodly sum of money by it but has acquired too a distrust of his own mother and a contempt for his own kind. Chizzle, Mizzle, and otherwise have lapsed into a habit of vaguely promising themselves that they will look into that outstanding little matter and see what can be done for Drizzle--who was not well used--when Jarndyce and Jarndyce shall be got out of the office. Shirking and sharking in all their many varieties have been sown broadcast by the ill-fated cause; and even those who have contemplated its history from the outermost circle of such evil have been insensibly tempted into a loose way of letting bad things alone to take their own bad course, and a loose belief that if the world go wrong it was in some off-hand manner never meant to go right.

    Thus, in the midst of the mud and at the heart of the fog, sits the Lord High Chancellor in his High Court of Chancery.



    Arbitration and E-Discovery: Make Up Your Own #^%@ Law!

    The National Law Journal's annoying practice of making its "best" content available only with a secret decoder ring forged in the fire of subscription dollars, nevertheless did not stop me from access to an intriguing article about arbitration's "e-discovery conundrum" (here for people with the secret code).

    In Arbitration's e-Discovery Conundrum (thank you Mr. Thrifty for the copy) the author contends that:

    . . . as litigation discovery techniques have become more prevalent in arbitration, arbitration has become just as time-consuming, expensive and burdensome. Without the benefit of an appeal process for the losing party, the primary remaining benefit for binding arbitration -- privacy -- is often outweighed by the other negative factors.

    Parties and their litigation counsel have pointed to runaway discovery as one major reason why they have abandoned arbitration in favor of mediation in the United States and even internationally.

    So how can "the long-recognized benefits of arbitration -- speed and cost savings -- be restored?"

    (top:  is this what any of us went to law school for? Flowchart from Integreon)

    The author recommends that the process must "address the needs and interests that led them to arbitration in the first place: to balance the need to discover those documents reasonably necessary for a party to prove its case with the cost, burden and time involved in producing such documents, while taking into account the need for fundamental fairness and to avoid surprise and trial by ambush."

    Here's where reformers fail to get the direction the law is moving in.  It's not about finding a process that fits your needs - it's about creating the process that is tailor-made for your one and only completely unique and unrepeatable dispute.

    The beauty of arbitration is not what it is.  It is what it can be.  The beauty of arbitration is that it allows you to make up your own $%#@^ law and procedure.  It restores control of the process to you.

    What, you say?  Your opponent and you can't agree?  This is no longer a good enough reason, particularly because I do not see many attorneys making the effort to craft discovery and case management plans that reasonably addresses the parties' actual need for every document that someone marginally involved in the dispute might have once breathed upon.

    I know whereof I speak.

    The solution?  Sit down, for goodness sake, with your adversary, for as many days as it takes, to reach agreement about what each side actually needs.  Leave your huffing and your puffing, your posturing and your adversarial chops at the conference room door.  There will be plenty of time for all of that after the only people who actually understand the dispute -- YOU -- agree upon the type of process necessary to resolve it as efficiently and effectively as possible.

    The law firms that do this will survive the recession. 

    The Mediator's Proposal: An Idea Whose Times Has Passed?

    Are mediators being hook-winked by clients who create artificial impasses for the purpose of procuring a favorable mediator's proposal?  Does the mediator's recommendation carry so much weight that the parties are subject to a manipulated mediator's proffer?  Does the mediator become just a tool of a party bent on flim-flam?   Or is all distributive bargaining flim-flam?

    Check out John DeGroote's in-house point of view over at Settlement Perspectives and leave a comment.  I've already left two there myself.

    I understand some lawyers are settling all their cases with mediators' proposals.  Why is that?  Are they savvier than their colleagues?  Or do they just need the authority of the mediator to "sell" settlement to their clients?

    Jump in here or over at John's place.  Whether you're a mediator, a litigator, or a client, we'd both appreciate your fresh ideas. 

    Face-to-Face Conversations Powerful Resolution Tool

    From this coming Monday's Forum Column in the Los Angeles Daily Journal (byline V. Pynchon):


    Psychologists tell us that we are not only "meaning making" beings, but that we are all born conspiracy theorists. Viewing a field of nonsensical, unrelated data, we naturally begin to "connect the dots" - to organize the information into a coherent, and often compelling, narrative.

    Pattern making or conspiracy theorizing is a human survival mechanism. We have never been the fastest or the biggest creatures on the planet. We don't have the sharpest teeth or blend in all that well with the scenery. Our soft, easily punctured skin is not covered with a protective shell. In a pinch, we can't take a running leap and fly away from land-bound carnivores who might make us their prey.

    We are, however, the canniest creatures on the planet. To avoid the tiger who made lunch of our best comrade, we surveyed the scene and committed the pattern of otherwise unrelated details to memory. Five banyan trees, a narrow stream, and, a pile of rubble left by a recent avalanche means "there are tigers here."

    Couple this with Fundamental Attribution Error and you have all of the ingredients necessary to blame inadvertently caused harm on elaborate conspiracies cooked up by our untrustworthy companions - Fundamental Attribution Error being our universal tendency to over-emphasize the role of others' negative personality traits to explain why harm befell us.

    So it is with our legal adversaries. Once the channels of communication have been severed by the filing of a lawsuit, attorneys and clients alike begin to make up "what really happened" based on predispositions, scattered conversations, faulty memories and scraps of documentation.


    Continue reading Monday's Daily Journal Forum Column here.


    Saving Your Home from Foreclosure by Mediation

    More than 360 Connecticut homeowners have avoided foreclosure in the past five months thanks to a new mediation program established by the state, but some think it’s still being underutilized.

    The program, which was part of comprehensive mortgage relief legislation passed earlier this year, allows borrowers to meet their lender face-to-face to try to reach a settlement on an overdue mortgage.

    If the borrower chooses mediation, lenders are required to participate and the process can delay foreclosure by 60 days or more.

    Some lawmakers have touted the program as the first of its kind in the country.

    About 28 percent of the estimated 5,513 homeowners who are eligible for the program have applied for mediation, and 361 people have reached a settlement that allowed them to keep their home. Another 116 homeowners decided to leave their home but were able to reach an agreement with their lender to pay off the balance of their mortgage. Mediation remains unsettled in 203 cases.

    “All of us familiar with the program would like to see more people participate,” said Ann Parent, an attorney for the Connecticut Fair Housing Authority. “We don’t know why more homeowners aren’t requesting mediation, but we feel like more should.”

    Parent said she supports the program and agrees that it is serving an important purpose, especially for homeowners who can’t afford a lawyer to guide them through the foreclosure process. At the same time, however, she said it’s unfortunate that less than 30 percent of eligible homeowners are using it.

    Continue reading here.

    Hard Times Make Good Neighbors: Collaborative Home Loan Re-Negotiation

    We are in this together. Remember. The bottom supports the middle and the middle supports the top. The current economy is Exhibit A.

    Link to L.A. Times story (more in-depth analysis) here.

    If your side of the boat sinks, my does too.

    Negotiating Women: 5th and Final Part

    Thanks again to Vicki Flaugher of SmartWomanGuides.com for inviting me to have this conversation with her about ways in which women can and do maximize their bargaining power.  And yes we do talk about negotiating the purchase of an automobile here as well!


    Negotiating Women Part IV

    Negotiating Women Part III

    This segment of my interview with Vicki Flaughter is primarily about why women don't negotiate - to their substantial economic detriment - (see Women Don't Ask Here) and what they can do about it.

    Negotiating Women Part II

    In part two of Vicki Flaugher's interview with me, we discuss ways in which women can comfortably respond to aggressive zero-sum distributive bargainers and  negotiate better business deals using their natural strengths.

    I'd like to once again thank Vicki Flaugher of the Smart Woman Guides for helping me stay (somewhat) on point in discussing those negotiation challenges particular to women.


    Negotiating Women: Never Negotiate Out of Fear, But Never Fear to Negotiate --

    Video below is part I of an interview on negotiation challenges, strategies and tactics for women with

    Vicki Flaugher, founder of SmartWoman GuidesThe full audio of the video is here along with Ms. Flaugher's kind comments about our conversation.   Ms. Flaugher describes her site resources as follows:

    If you’re a beginning female entrepreneur or a women who is thinking about starting in business for herself, you have found your tribe. You have arrived at a safe place to talk about business. Especially if you are 35-55 years old, you are going to love this site because that’s a magic age time. You really discover who you are during those years and finally decide to do what you love instead of just what you’re “supposed” to do. The spirit of that revelation and all the promise it holds is why this site was created.

    Now, Part I of Negotiating Women!

    "Never Fear to Negotiate" from JFK's Inaugural Address with video here.

    So let us begin anew -- remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate. Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

    Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms, and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

    Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

    Let both sides unite to heed, in all corners of the earth, the command of Isaiah -- to "undo the heavy burdens, and [to] let the oppressed go free."

    And, if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor -- not a new balance of power, but a new world of law -- where the strong are just, and the weak secure, and the peace preserved.

    All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days; nor in the life of this Administration; nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.


    Negotiating Potential Liability at Holiday Parties

    Planning on partying like its 1999 to boast morale in your law firm?  Check out tips offered by Morrison & Foester in  Holiday Parties: Morale Boost but Employer Beware back in December of 1999, advice that is as timely today as it was then.  And remember, there's no conflict management strategy better than conflict prevention.  Here then are MoFo's excellent tips, which is just a small excerpt of the good advice to be found on the link above.


    What Can Employers Do?

    Short of assuming the role of "Grinch" and canceling the holiday party, what can employers do to protect themselves from liability for sexual harassing conduct during holiday parties?

    First, employers should make sure that they have a comprehensive, written sexual harassment policy in place, including sexual harassment training in the workplace. Employers might also re-circulate the sexual harassment policy prior to the holiday party, or send a memo to employees reminding employees to act responsibly at the party and expressing a zero tolerance for harassing behavior.

    Second, if the budget permits, employers could invite employees to bring their spouse, significant other, or guest. Although such an invitation will not rule out incidents of sexual harassment, it may reduce the likelihood of such incidents occurring, as employees may tend to act more responsibly and in a less flirtatious manner towards each other if they bring a spouse or special friend to the party.

    Third, employers should monitor closely any employees who have a history of harassing behavior, or who have been involved in complaints of sexual harassment. If such an employee is observed engaging in any inappropriate behavior, he or she should be asked to leave the party immediately, and the employer should apply appropriate discipline upon the employee's return to work.

    Finally, employers receiving any complaints regarding inappropriate behavior at the holiday party should treat such complaints seriously and should take prompt, effective steps to address the complaints. This includes interviewing the alleged harasser and harassee, talking to potential witnesses, and administering appropriate discipline if inappropriate behavior is found to have occurred. By taking prompt, remedial action to address complaints of harassment, employers can reduce and in some cases altogether eliminate liability for sexual harassment.

    Blog Bites Bar ; Goes to Court

    See the Complaint here.

    h/t to @taxgirl

    As the ABA Journal explains:

    A law firm contends new Louisiana lawyer advertising rules slated to take effect in April will restrict its right to comment on Twitter, Facebook, online bulletin boards and blogs.

    The Wolfe Law Group filed a federal suit today challenging the rules, claiming they would subject each of the firm’s online posts to an evaluation and a $175 fee, according to a press release. The construction law firm says in the suit that its own blog may qualify for an exemption for law firm websites, but its comments on other blogs would not.

    The firm claims the rules would restrict its First Amendment right to speak freely about its trade. To make its point, the law firm has launched a blog called Blogging is Speaking.

    Sometimes your business or professional negotiation has to take place in Court.  This is an example.

    Feeling Extorted? Mr. Molski's Serial ADA Litigation and Why We Settle

    Many in the legal blogosphere are buzzing about the recent Supreme Court decision letting stand a Central District injunction barring wheelchair-bound Jarek Molski from filing further ADA accessibility cases in our local federal trial court here in Los Angeles.  See Justice Berzon's and Kozinski's spirited dissents to Ninth Circuit's Per Curiam refusal of the Petition for a full panel re-hearing here.

    Mr. Molski was declared a vexatious litigant by the California Central District federal court back in 2004.  See Wendel Rosen's excellent report of that case here Molski v. Mandarin Touch Restaurant, 347 F. Supp. 2d 860 (C.D. Cal.2004) (declaring Molski a vexatious litigant and requiring court approval prior to his filing future lawsuits); aff'd Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty here.

    Still active is Molski's case in the Eastern District of California which was recently permitted to go forward by the same Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.  As the Ninth Circuit explained the factual background of Mr. Molski's "serial litigation,"

    [Plaintiff] Molski and his lawyer Thomas Frankovich (“Frankovich”) were purportedly in the business of tracking down public accommodations with ADA violations and extorting settlements out of them. On cross examination, Molski acknowledged that: he did not complain to any of [the defendant's] employees about his access problems; he had filed 374 similar ADA lawsuits as of October 8, 2004; Frankovich had filed 232 of the 374 lawsuits; even more lawsuits had been filed since that date; Molski and Frankovich averaged $4,000 for each case that settled; Molski did not pay any fees to Frankovich; Molski maintained no employment besides prosecuting ADA cases, despite his possession of a law degree; Molski’s projected annual income from settlements was $800,000;2 Molski executed blank verification forms for Frankovich to submit with responses to interrogatories; they had also filed lawsuits against two other restaurants owned by Cable’s; they had filed a lawsuit against a nearby restaurant; and Sarantschin obtained up to 95% of his income from Frankovich’s firm for performing investigations for ADA lawsuits.

    See Molski v. MJ Cable, Inc. here.

    Despite these apparently damning facts, in its 2007 affirmance of the vexatious litigant finding, the Ninth Circuit noted some of the reasons why Molski and his lawyer could not be condemned for their pursuit of serial ADA litigation.  The ADA, noted the Court,

    does not permit private plaintiffs to seek damages, and limits the relief they may seek to injunctions and attorneys’ fees. We recognize that the unavailability of damages reduces or removes the incentive for most disabled persons who are injured by inaccessible places of public accommodation to bring suit under the ADA. See Samuel R. Bagenstos, The Perversity of Limited Civil Rights Remedies: The Case of “Abusive” ADA Litigation, 54 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 1, 5 (2006).

    As a result, most ADA suits are brought by a small number of private plaintiffs who view themselves as champions of the disabled. District courts should not condemn such serial litigation as vexatious as a matter of course. See De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148 n.3. For the ADA to yield its promise of equal access for the disabled, it may indeed be necessary and desirable for committed individ- uals to bring serial litigation advancing the time when public accommodations will be compliant with the ADA.

    But as important as this goal is to disabled individuals and to the public, serial litigation can become vexatious when, as here, a large number of nearly-identical complaints contain factual allegations that are contrived, exaggerated, and defy common sense. False or grossly exaggerated claims of injury, especially when made with the intent to coerce settlement, are at odds with our system of justice, and Molski’s history of litigation warrants the need for a pre-filing review of his claims. We acknowledge that Molski’s numerous suits were probably meritorious in part—many of the establishments he sued were likely not in compliance with the ADA.

    On the other hand, the district court had ample basis to conclude that Molski trumped up his claims of injury. The district court could permissibly conclude that Molski used these lawsuits and their false and exaggerated allegations as a harassing device to extract cash settlements from the targeted defendants because of their noncompliance with the ADA. In light of these conflicting considerations and the relevant standard of review, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in declaring Molski a vexatious litigant and in imposing a pre-filing order against him.

    In other words, when the legislature puts the enforcement of the ADA in the hands of disabled individuals without permitting them to recover damages, you can't blame private attorneys for working the market created for the private enforcement of public laws even if you can blame them for the manner in which the market is worked.

    So what does this have to do with the settlement of litigation and, in particular ADA Litigation?

    Because these accessibility cases always cost more to defend than to settle and because they're often indefensible, the rational business decision is simply to settle the darn things.  

    No one, however, wants to be extorted.  And in the few ADA cases I've mediated, it's the principled refusal to pay money at the point of a gun that interferes with a business establishment's willingness to do the economically "rational" thing rather than, say, try it;  appeal it to the Ninth Circuit; and, pursue it to the Supreme Court of the United States.

    For those representing defendants who are feeling extorted, I offer my own (previously posted) ADA mediated settlement story below.

    Continue Reading

    Negotiation/Mediation Terms of Art

    I have recently been asked by several lawyers to write a few posts on mediation and negotiation terminology not only because some attorneys are unfamiliar with these terms, but also because different mediators and negotiators use them to mean different things. 

    Mediators, lawyers and negotiators who read this post are invited to add, correct, object, or suggest further refinements and to add their thoughts on further strategic and tactical uses and perils of the impasse-busters we discuss today - the bracketed offer and the mediator's proposal.

    And because my readers may find this post as dry as bones, I once again offer the X-rated "Negotiation Table" as pretty #%$@ true and funny  (think Ari Gold). 

    Bracketed Offer:  Party A makes an offer to bargain in the zone he wishes to see the negotiation move to.  This is often used when neither party wishes to step up to the line of probable impasse and it can also be used to re-anchor the bargaining zone.  Quite simply, Party A offers to bargain in the range of, say, $2 million and $3 million.  He offers to put $2 million on the table if party B is willing to put $3 million on the table, i.e., "I'll offer to pay you $2 million if you'll offer to accept $3 million to dismiss your suit."

    If party B does not accept the bracket, party A will not be "stuck" with having actually placed $2 million on the table when the next exchange of offers and counter-offers begins.

    Responding to a Bracketed Offer:  Party B can:  1.  respond with a counter-bracket, i.e., I'll make an offer to accept $3.5 million in settlement if you'll put $2.5 million on the table; or, 2.  refuse the bracket and ask for an unbracketed counter.

    Mediator's Proposal: 

    The basics:  the mediator chooses a number for the parties, making an "offer" to settle for, say $2.3 million which the parties are free to accept or reject.  It is a double-blind "offer."  If either party rejects the "offer" neither party knows whether the other accepted or rejected.  Acceptances are communicated only if both parties accept, in which case they have a deal.

    The circumstances:  The parties should seek a mediator's proposal only when they have reached a hard impasse.  A hard impasse exists when both parties have actually put their true bottom line on the table or their next to the bottom line and they see no hope of it closing the deal.

    The purpose:  Both parties believe they could convince their principal  to accept a deal that is more than they wanted to pay or less than they wanted to accept, but they cannot convince their principals to put $X on the table or accept $Y.  They hope to use the authority of the mediator to sell the deal to their principals.  If they are the principals, they are willing to settle for a number lower or greater than planned but not willing to close the bargaining session having made such a concession, which would have the effect of setting the floor or establishing the ceiling of all future bargaining sessions.

    The Mediator's number:  I do not know whether there is a general practice among mediators about how they choose the number proffered.  When parties ask me to make a mediator's proposal (I rarely recommend one in the first instance) I explain my practice as follows:  When I make a proposal I am not acting as a non-binding arbitrator or early neutral evaluator.  In other words, my proposal is not a reflection of the value of the case.  The number I propose will be a number that I believe the Plaintiff is likely to accept and the Defendant is likely to pay.

    In rare instances, the parties wish to continue bargaining in the event a mediator's proposal is not accepted by both parties.  I have permitted this in a few circumstances after explaining to the negotiating parties that it often causes resentment on the other side because they feel as if the party who wishes to continue negotiating is unfairly attempting to use the mediator's number as a new bench-mark from which to bargain. 

    I highly recommend against continued bargaining after the rejection of a mediator's proposal on the day of the mediation.  It should serve as a hard stop because the parties respond to it as an ultimatum.  That's part of its power.  Take it or leave it. 

    Just as you would not continue bargaining after indicating that you were putting your last dollar on the table, you should not continue bargaining (during that session) after the mediator has, in effect, put both parties' anticipated bottom lines on the table for them.



    Are Women Better Mediators Than Men?

    First she's all about the election and now she's back to post-mid-Century America's gender wars?  Say it ain't so, Vickie!

    These are just statistics from an extremely limited sample that tells more about this particular program in this particular place concerning the particular types of cases being mediated than they are about the relative abilities of male and female mediators.

    I'm unaware, however, of any controlled studies on gender differences in mediation results.  I do know that there's a gender imbalance in the profession and have had panel administrators acknowledge on the QT that even when they're choosing mediators or settlement officers pro bono lawyers tend to choose men most of the time.  

    So for women struggling in the profession, here's your moment of zen.

    Examining the graphical representation of mediator gender and settlement rates, one can see that there are male mediators who settle cases at higher than average rates, as well as female mediators who settle cases are lower than average rates. Nevertheless, it appears that most of the popular mediators who settle cases at higher than average rates are women, while the majority of popular mediators who settle cases at lower than average rates are men.

    Some may object to this “battle of the sexes” analysis on the grounds that men and women should be treated as equals. Based on our data, however, male and female mediators are not statistically equal with respect to the rate at which they settle cases. Whether this “good” or “bad” is more a matter of philosophy than statistics.

    In her book In a Different Voice, Carol Gilligan described how men and women think about moral conflicts differently. Her research suggests that men tend to consider conflict in terms of rights while women generally view conflicts in terms of dynamic relationships. Accordingly, a “female” approach to conflict resolution may be better suited to the process of facilitating mediated settlements than a “male” approach to conflict.

    For a colored chart and remainder of post, see Correlation of Mediator Gender to Settlement Rate at Practical Dispute Resolution here.

    When I think of my own experience as a neutral for the past four years and compare it to my experience as an attorney in the first four years of my practice 1980-1984, I can only say that it is somewhat similar.

    What made the difference in the years that followed?  Women flooding the profession.  As women litigators and bench officers begin to retire, I suspect that we'll begin to see greater use of women neutrals.  And no, I do not believe that the paucity of women on commercial mediation panels nor what I believe to be their greater struggle to build a thriving practice there is based upon conscious sexism.

    Like the tendency to prefer judges over attorney mediators (a preference I believe to be waning) I believe that the sub-conscious preference for male over female mediators arises from a continuing misunderstanding among members of the bar about what settles cases.  Too many attorneys continue to believe that they need a mediator who can overpower the will of their adversary.  And if you're looking for raw power (particularly the power of authority) in American commerce and law, you will naturally choose the judge over the attorney and the man over the woman.

    I haven't written about this in the past because it is a topic that tends to divide people and it is not my intention to start a tiny gender war in the tiny world of mediation.

    But when these statistics started pouring into my in-box, I couldn't ignore the topic any longer.

    Please feel free to comment.

    Ten Ways to Promote Cooperative Negotiations

    Mr. Thrifty and I were discussing the increasingly depressing state of air-travel with our neighbors over take-out last week when frequent-flyer cosmetics rep Sean mentioned that U.S. Air was planning to stop showing in-flight movies for a $10 million cost saving.

    Since all four of us are frequent flyers, a lively discussion ensued about ways the airlines could deliver entertainment at lesser cost.

    Sean's life-partner, the rocket scientist, Tony, wasn't chiming in as usual.  Only when the conversation flagged did we notice that he had one of those "I'm about to invent something" looks on his face.  

    "You know," Tony finally offered, chopsticks hovering in mid-air, "producers ought to offer unreleased movies to U.S. Air in exchange for the airlines making willing passengers available as focus groups.  U.S. Air would be able to offer its passengers something better than the other airlines -- movies that haven't hit the theaters yet - and the production companies would probably pay the airline a fee for the focus group service."

    This is why people say this or that doesn't require you to be a rocket scientist.  These are the types of innovative solutions Tony calls up daily on a moment's notice.  His take-out dinner proposal was what  negotiation gurus are talking when they suggest that bargaining parties use their negotiation for the purpose of creating value.   

    As Harvard negotiation luminaries Lax and Sebenius have written, however, 

    having created new value, negotiators must still divide the resulting goods. Unfortunately, the competitive strategies used to claim value tend to undermine the cooperative strategies needed to create value. The exaggeration and concealment needed for effective competition is directly opposed to the open sharing of information needed to find joint gains. Conversely taking an open cooperative approach makes one vulnerable to the hard bargaining tactics to a competitive negotiator.

    The Manager as Negotiator: The Negotiator's Dilemma: Creating and Claiming Value

    Lax and Sebenius' recommendations to encourage value-creating cooperation?

    1. Focus on interests rather than positions.
    2. Make a strong early commitment to cooperative attitudes.
    3. Capitalize on past histories of cooperative dealings.
    4. Shift focus from competition to relationship.
    5. Make an early agreement to be guided by the principle of just division of mutual gains.
    6. Stress norms of appropriate behavior, such as being reasonable, civilized or fair.
    7. Reward cooperation with cooperation.
    8. Punish competition with competitive moves.
    9. Readily provide your bargaining partner opportunities to resume cooperation.
    10. Be clear and simple, so your responses are consistent with your stated intentions.

    I will discuss each of these techniques in subsequent posts.

    In the meantime, any U.S. Air people out there can have Tony's idea free of charge.

    Because All Great Negotiations Are Performance Art

    Bob Dylan on Creativity
    View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: dylan bob)
    . . . with thanks to @guykawasaki for tweeting the dylan slide show!

    Trial Skills, Deposition Skills and IP Negotiation Skills Programs

    Here are my upcoming speaking and teaching engagements in November and January!

    I'm baaacccckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!!!!!!!!!!

    Judicate West Neutral and IP ADR Mediator and Blogger Victoria Pynchon.

    Coach/Instructor, National Institute of Trial Advocacy: Building Trial Skills
    Location: Loyola Law School Los Angeles
    City: Los Angeles, CA
    Dates: 1/2/2009 - 1/8/2009
    Director: Williams, Gary C.

    This is a week-long intensive program for new and/or experienced attorneys who need to learn/brush up on their basic trial skills.  If you can take the time, your entire practice will benefit from the experience.

    BrightTALK Intellectual Property Summit here! on November 11, 2008 Webcast Free

    Negotiating a Settlement in IP Litigation

       12:00 pm
       Presenting Victoria Pynchon, Judicate West, CPR, Settle It Now, IP ADR Blog

    And coming soon!  Deposition Skills Training (NITA techniques) at Solo Practice University!!


    Faculty @ SPU

    Negotiating a Conflict-Resolved Workplace

    Want a horror story for Halloween?

    Remember that Heller Ehrman collapse?  Seems that you don't get COBRA benefits if the health plan your former employer maintained is kaput because it has gone out of business.

    Now think, pending surgery, no health insurance, pre-existing condition. 

    Why do I lead a post about resolving work-place conflict with bankruptcy and tragedy?  Because no 100-year old AmLaw100 firm fails so spectacularly without having made some conflict resolution mistakes.

    Can you eliminate conflict in the law firm?  Hellllloooooooooooooooo???????????  We're lawyers who Anne Reed at Deliberations this morning reminds us have been characterized as . . . well . . . sharks with

    skin that is tough and rough -- covered with thousands of tiny hard teeth call denticles that abrade any passerby made of softer stuff. Lawyers are also thick-skinned. Easily identified by their humorlessness and abrasive personalities, they are the bane of many social gatherings.


    What to do?  Apologize when your "denticles" abrade passersby, but more importantly, ask yourself the most important Bob Sutton-inspired organizational wellness question noted over at The Non-Billable Hour this morning:

     What Happens When People Make a Mistake?



    Negotiating a Better Health Care Plan for Your Employees

    Check out Dan Schwartz's post - A New Approach to Health Care - at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog.  The focus on value rather than cost is what we've been preaching here at Settle It Now from the start.  Snippet below but click on over to Dan's place for the goods on win-win health care solutions.

    At the CBIA Annual Meeting last night, I had the pleasure of hearing a keynote address by Elizabeth Teisberg, co-author of the book: Redefining Health Care: Creating a Value-Based Competition on Results.  Her presentation focused on the importance of taking a comprehensive approach to health care reform -- one that controls costs, improves patient outcomes and creates greater value for our health care dollars.

    OMG!  I just had a non-political moment and it felt so good!

    Mediating? A Savvy Plaintiff's Attorney Tells You How

    by Guest Blogger Brian Herrington

    Don’t Agree To Mediate Too Soon In The Litigation

    The mediation of litigated cases involving personal or economic injury should mainly be about money. Unless the issues of law and fact have been fully fleshed out, mediation sessions get bogged down in contentions about ultimate facts and conclusions of law that neither side can "win."

    Let’s take a drug case in which the drug causes a signature disease that only has 3-4 causal connections.  Until the defendant knows my client’s medical history and definitively understands that the only causal connection present in my client’s case is the drug at issue, the defendant cannot fully appreciate the strengths of the plaintiff's case, leading to an unbridgeable divergence in the two sides' valuation.  On the other hand, if I’ve not yet conducted adequate discovery to learn that the drug didn’t contain the offending agent until after my client quit taking the drug, then I’m going to waste my time – and everyone else’s – by asking for 7 figures.

    If the attorneys are making arguments that sound like summary judgment motions during a mediation, both parties are wasting their time. No one should proceed to mediate before they know what they  agree on and what they disagree.  Ideally, the parties should agree upon as many facts and legal issues as possible before sitting down to negotiate settlement. 

    Make Sure The Money Person Is There

    I will no longer attend a mediation unless the individual authorized to write the settlement check is present.   None of this, “We have to get on the phone and see what corporate says” for me. You do not want to mediate with defense counsel only.  It’s much easier for an adjuster or other money person to hold tight at a number when he/she doesn’t have a plane to catch. In fact, one of the first things I ask the corporate representative at a mediation is, What time is your flight?  This information usually tells me volumes.

    Make Sure The Mediator Knows Who to Talk to Before the Mediation Begins

    Assuming there’s only one plaintiff and one defendant, there are no less than four parties that the mediator may need to direct his/her attention to: (1) defense counsel (2) the corporate representative of the defendant (3) plaintiff’s counsel and (4) the plaintiff. In any given litigation, one or more of these parties could be the source of impasse. Usually my clients are very well-oriented on where we need to be money-wise heading into mediation. The occasion does arise, however, when I need the mediator to help me help my client understand that his or her expectations of recovery are unrealistic.  On those occasions, I instruct the mediator confidentially that my client needs a little reality testing if the case is going to settle. 

    All of us sometimes have unrealistic expectations.  I certainly can, as can  defense counsel or the corporate representatives.  The point is the mediator needs to know who needs to be talked to a little more than the others. I encourage any mediator with whom I work to accept confidential settlement letters. In these letters, I mention which parties I think might be barriers to settlement.

    If you have a mediator who only talks to the lawyers, you’re probably in for a long and unsuccessful day. Or, given the situation, it may be the clients who are being hard-headed. In these instances, the mediator needs to talk right past the lawyers and speak directly to the clients. As a plaintiff’s lawyer, I won’t deal with a mediator who won’t talk directly to my client or the corporate representative.

    The lawyers' job is to represent their clients and the mediators job is to bring the lawyers together. If the lawyers are in the way, the mediator needs to ignore them for a while and deal directly with the clients.  Ensure that the mediator you’ve agreed to will do this.

    Before The Mediation Set A Time Limit For Real Progress

    This last point is something that I’ve only started employing in the last few years, and it’s worked wonders. In a courteous and professional tone, I inform defense counsel that if we’ve not made sufficient progress by a certain time or within a certain number of hours – usually 2-3 – then I will leave.  What constitutes “sufficient progress” is case-specific, and you’ll know it when you see it. I give this caveat to defense counsel so that there’s no misunderstanding at the mediation. If, by all reasonable measures, my case is worth 7 figures, I’m not going to spend 6 hours trying to get to 6 figures. I simply will not let that happen to me anymore.

    By informing defense counsel ahead of time that I won’t stay more than a couple of hours unless I see real progress, I’ve managed to avoid many of the lowball offers that usually start the defense side of the mediation. Or, if I get a lowball offer, the numbers start increasing once I remind the mediator and defense counsel that I will leave if substantial progress isn’t made.

    Of course, this point applies equally to plaintiff’s counsel. I can’t start off at $10 billion dollars like Dr. Evil with a law degree. I make sure that my offers are within reason so that I can be justifiably indignant if defense counsel starts playing games with the offers.

    One Size Does Not Fit All

    As I said at the beginning, there is no foolproof way for the plaintiff lawyer to approach mediation. There are numerous approaches and many depend on the parties involved. These are some of the broad categorical approaches that I take and they’ve worked for me.  I hope that you find them useful as well.  Happy mediating.

    About The Author

    Brian Herrington is the founding partner of Herrington Law, PA in Jackson, Mississippi. Licensed in Mississippi and Tennessee, Brian litigates consumer class actions, cases involving defective drugs and medical devices, and personal injury cases all over the country.

    You can obtain more information about Brian's practice by going to Herrington Law PA’s main website here. Brian blogs on numerous issues relevant to litigation at Mississippi Consumer Lawyer here.  You can also follow Brian on twitter at twitter.com/brianherrington.

    Why Common Sense, Compassion and Listening Twice As Much As You Talk Are The Best Negotiation Strategies In Law and Life

    Guest Blogger - Susan Cartier Liebel

    First, I'm honored to be guest blogging while Vickie is away campaigning her heart out until November 4. I'm also a little intimidated to be here as I can't speak on negotiation with the authority Vickie can, after all she's a distinguished and honored expert on the topic.

    However, I can speak on negotiation as a lawyer and a human being dealing with every day life. So in this post I will speak to both the skill sets which lawyers must employ every day of their lives both professionally and personally and the strange phenomenon which exists when lawyers are 'off' the job but are still known to be, or deliberately make others aware of the fact, they are lawyers. 

    A lawyer in many ways can never really step away from their professional reputation unless it remains hidden from those we are negotiating with.  And you know exactly what I'm talking about.  How many times have you negotiated with a vendor or customer service representative and when you feel you are losing ground or the other person is not taking you seriously you pull out your trump card, "Well, I'm a lawyer."  What are you expecting?  Be honest.  You are expecting them to take you seriously now with the unspoken threat of legal action if they don't some how immediately capitulate or offer some type of concession to your demand.  You've implied you have this superior intelligence and set of skills and you are not afraid to use it to threaten their job.  How many times have you subtly threatened the same in a letter for a personal situation simply by using your business letterhead?  Gotcha. 

    Well, what happens when the reverse is true?  When someone you are negotiating with uses your status as a lawyer to escalate the situation?  They don't treat you in the manner they would a friend or neighbor because they  assume you will be aggressive and immovable on a matter precisely because you are a lawyer?   They fire the first volley and create a situation where you have to defend yourself first by saying, "I'm not here as a lawyer. Why are you threatening me with legal action?"  You are ultimately responsible for de-escalating a situation simply because they know you are a lawyer.

    This very thing happened to me with a neighbor and I had to literally work backwards from the implied threat of a law suit simply because I am a lawyer. And in it are some valuable negotiation skills I want to share with you.

    I've lived in my home six years.  Both my neighbors are original owners having been there for more than 35 years.  In between my home and my neighbor to the right are 40 foot pine trees and several 60 foot hickory trees which are quite old.  My neighbor approached my husband and said he was going to take down two of 'his' trees, one of which sits on the edge of my property in an 'island' of trees bordered with decorative brick.  When I heard he wanted to take down one of 'my' trees I went to his home and asked why he wanted to take down one of 'my' trees?  He proceeded to tell me it wasn't my tree.  "Then why is it in 'my' island?"  "Because I told the original owner I had no problem with her using her decorative brick around it for aesthetic purposes.  But now I want to take it down."

    Well, while this neighbor is a friendly guy, I don't believe he gives away freely that which is his.  He didn't like the leaves blowing into his yard and thought he could get away with claiming it was his.  I asked him if he would show me the property card because I really wasn't sure this was his tree and I really enjoyed the tree. (Up to this point all was done in a very nice, cordial, friendly way.)  His manner immediately changed, "I'm not showing you anything. I don't care if you don't want that tree coming down.  It's mine and it's COMING down.  And I know you're a lawyer and you can sue me if you want.  It will come down when you're not home.  And if you think that's going to bother you, wait till I take down all those pine trees in the spring."  He's screaming this as he points to the beautiful natural fence between our homes. And he has now also upped the stakes.

    So, let's talk about the practical aspects of this.  First, he's a neighbor.  Second, he could very well take the tree(s) down when I'm not home and no matter what happens in any litigation, the tree(s) are gone and irreplaceable.  Third, I had no proof, just a very credible suspicion the tree was not his.  Fourth, he was taking the tree down within a week.  Fifth, he was immediately hostile and assumed because I was a lawyer I would threaten suit and use my magical 'superiority' that lay people fear in order to bully him.  He seemed to have taken all options for discussion off the table simply because I was a lawyer. He attacked first.

    It would have been very easy to escalate this.  Here's what happened instead:

    Me:  (Jack)...let's slow down here.  What's really going on?  This is not like you.  There's more to this.  Is something else bothering you?
    Jack: No, nothing.  This is my tree and I'm taking it down whether you like it or not.
    Me:  Jack, let's get away from the tree for a minute.  You're really edgy.  I'm not used to seeing you like this.  Is everything, OK?
    Jack: (Pause)....Well, my aunt is in the hospital and it doesn't look good.

    (This went back and forth for a while as he slowly revealed his aunt's condition, a woman who had raised him, and it was impacting him deeply.)

    Me:  Now it makes sense to me why you're so on edge.
    Jack: (He brings back the topic of the tree.) "Step on my porch, Susan and you'll see the top of that tree is dead.  I'm willing to pay to take it down."

    All of a sudden, there is a subtle acknowledgment the tree isn't his.  But now he has also pointed to a reason I would want the tree to be taken down.  He would pay for its removal now or I could pay several hundred dollars for it later.  He is trying to find consensus..or reaching across the table.

    The end result is I agreed to let him pay to take the tree down.  He did all the prep work around the tree and we both interviewed and agreed to the right tree service. After the tree was removed he told my husband he would not take down the pine trees that separated our properties. (I believe, although he planted those trees, he planted them with the agreement of our home's previous owner to do so on the joint border...a little tidbit I remembered from a previous conversation.)  But this gave him a chance to be gracious and conciliatory.

    The end result:  I got what I wanted, someone else to pay for the removal of a tree which apparently was dead on top, no more threat of removal of the pine trees, no need to spend money on a property survey, either. He got what he wanted, the 'dirty' tree removed while we both got something else, preservation of our neighborly friendship and working together as a team on joint matters.  This 'partnership' has since extended into other neighborly issues like shopping for home heating oil as a group to have better negotiating power, etc.

    It's very hard to un-ring the bell when someone assumes because you are a lawyer you are incapable of not acting like a lawyer in a situation where both parties need to feel like they are on the same footing.  And given most lay people's perceptions of lawyers and the casual way lawyers use their 'trump' card, is it any wonder.

    At the heart of negotiation is listening twice as much as you talk and the ability to step into another person's shoes with genuine compassion.  In our 'negotiation' everyone walked away with more than what they wanted without litigation in spite of the fact one of us was a lawyer. This neighbor got a chance to reclaim his good neighbor status because I took the time to figure out the thorn in the lion's paw.

    Susan Cartier Liebel is a national coach/consultant working with newly minted or well-seasoned lawyers who want to create and grow their solo practices.  She authors the popular blog Build A Solo Practice, LLC and is the creator of Solo Practice University - a revolutionary web-based educational and professional networking community for lawyers and law students.

    Obama and the Politics of Despair

    There's nothing like getting a new Harpers in the mail to upset my idealistic dreams of a new America flourishing under an Obama administration.  Here's the opening November '08 Harpers slap-in-the-face for dreamy liberals like me:

    After eight years of catastrophic Republican misrule—in the midst of economic crisis and rising unemployment, in a nation plagued by ruinous energy costs and inflation, bank failures, and staggering public and private corruption—an eloquent, charismatic, intelligent Democratic candidate was locked in a statistical tie with a doddering old hack whose primary argument for his claim to the most powerful office on earth is that he was shot down over Vietnam and tortured for five years. Indeed, this remained the case even after McCain demonstrated beyond all doubt, in his impetuous selection of a ludicrously unsuitable vice- presidential candidate, that he lacked the good judgment that is the primary qualification for the job. If the Democratic Party loses this election, then it should forever concede the presidency.

    Ouch!  I read this magazine for the same reason I watch Fox News.  To upset my own comfortable ideologies.  That's the trouble with us liberals -- we're always fretting about being fair, when, according to Harper's Roger Hodge we're just a big bunch of conflict-avoidant pussies.  

    Conflict in politics is not a metaphor, and as with any fight, the audience is likely to get involved. That is the essence of politics. A campaign that decides in advance that voters are tired of negative campaigning, that they are sick of partisan attacks and will respond only to positive messages, has stupidly left the field of battle. The people who truly dislike political combat are presumably among the 95 million who do not vote. Senator Barack Obama, a sophisticated and intelligent man with sophisticated and intelligent advisers, promises to change Washington, to eliminate the tone of partisan rancor, to foster a new spirit of brotherhood and cooperation. Poor lamb, he wishes to lie down with lions. But the Kingdom has not come.

    The answer? 


    Unfortunately, the sovereign voter can do little, on his own, to remedy the situation, especially if he happens not to live in Florida or Ohio. Yes, he can make a campaign contribution, a slightly more effective form of voting, but unless the Obama campaign decides to wage a more creative and destructive war, casting monetary ballots remains an empty gesture. (Of course one can also join the battle personally, perhaps by repeating the rumors about John McCain’s Alz heimer’s meds or the Sarah Palin sex tape.) Ultimately, we return to the problem of political will, to the Democratic Party, to the commitment of its party bosses to prevail, finally, in this election.

    We can hope for change, that the Republicans will make some fatal error, or that Obama’s party will fight hard enough to persuade a decisive number of “low information” voters that John McCain is not only a liar but a menace to our children’s future. Recent precedents, however, are not encouraging. The Republican Party lied its way through eight years of criminal misrule while Democrats mostly just cowered in a back room. Now, faced with a clumsy deception about whether Sarah Palin sought an earmark for a small town in Alaska, Obama exclaims, “Come on! I mean, words mean something, you can’t just make stuff up.” Oh, yes, Barack, we can.

    In the same issue that suggests we dirty our hands by calling John McCain a liar and the Bush administration's "misrule" criminal, we read that Obama is a detached blank screen upon which voters can project any quality they like (or dislike) because . . . well . . . his mother was lonely and so is he:

    Obama wants to believe in the common good as a way of providing a fullness to experience that avoids the slide into nihilism. But sometimes I don’tknow if he knows what belief is and what it would be to hold such a belief. It all seems so distant and opaque. The persistent presence of the mother’s dilemma—the sense of loneliness,doubt, and abandonment—seems palpable and ineliminable. We must believe, but we can’t believe. Perhaps this is the tragedy that some of us see in Obama: a change we can believe in and the crushing realization that nothing will change.

    See The American Void by Simon Critchley

    This is usually the point at which my own McCain-supporting mother breaks in with "honey, you know, you can think too much."  And after years, decades really, of finding this refrain irritating, I finally agree with her about the thinking part if not about her taste in Presidential candidates.

    Like the Obama caricatured in this month's Harpers as an ineffective dreamer as intent on replacing his deceased mother's lack of faith with liberal-Christian-do-gooding as Oliver Stone suggests "W" was intent on finally pleasing Daddy, I simply choose to have faith in the stated values of the Democratic party.  I continue to believe that over time, we can do better as a nation through consensus and problem-solving, collaboration and compromise, than we can by adopting the tactics of the world's strong-arm leaders and disciples of discord. 

    The Good News

    Assuming that the guy I think Obama is -- highly educated, articulate, and idealistically dedicated to serving the common welfare -- actually exist on the political scene (and I will not give up this faith any more readily that others would renounce their own religions) I believe them to be riding the bow-wave of transformation.  I have staked my professional life on this faith in my fellows' ability to work toward the common good, abandoning the extremely lucrative practice of legal battle in exchange for the far less financially rewarding practice of collaborative negotiated conflict resolution. 

    Who are the real cowards here and who the heroes?  People who refuse to negotiate face-to-face "without pre-condition" ("we won't discuss settlement unless they're willing to put $10 million on the table first") and without the protection of several layers of legal counsel?  Or those who are willing to test the rectitude of their "position" by sitting across a table with their opponent to frankly discuss their mutual role in whatever commercial or personal catastrophe flowed from the intersection at which their (mis)fortunes collided? 

    The social psychologists tell us that we live on the razor's edge of individual survival (me, me, me, me, me) and the collective good.  It is our great challenge as a species to live that which we cannot refuse to understand -- "we" cannot drill a hole in "their" side of the boat without sinking all of us.

    So I will continue to brave reading Harpers (which discourages me) and risk the challenge to my world view of Fox News commentary (which so often enrages me) on the off-chance that my religion -- tolerance; compassion; collective effort; empathy and the like, has more staying power than the religion of hate; discord; and, denial. 

    And I will also continue to believe that none of us could ever possibly be right.  

    Only that we could potentially be happy.

    Ending on a positive gaping void note with Hugh McLeod's greatest to date contribution to humanity:  How to Be CreativeYou can catch him on Twitter here.



    Hope, Safety and Innovation

    The first thing we mediators are taught (after digesting the imperative to "be conscious") is that people in conflict need to be in an atmosphere of hope and safety to be able to:  (1)  recognize the point of view of another; (2) be accountable for his/her own "part" in the dispute; and, (3) generate creative solutions to bust past impasse.

    This is the reason one of the post categories over at the IP ADR Blog is "Innovate, Don't Litigate," which is the dispute resolution mantra of Sun Microsystems CEO Jonathan Schwartz.

    That said,  I am happy to link my readers to The Financial Crisis' Silver Lining over at Harvard Business Publications.

    Perhaps the good times are in fact dead. And certainly someone thinking of forming the umpteenth "Web 2.0-widget-to-grab-audience-and-find-advertisers" ought to pause to think whether they really have some kind of defined competitive advantage that can translate into a sustainable business.

    But real customers continue to face real problems. And as always, innovators who figure out different ways to solve those problems--and make money doing so--will have opportunities to create new growth businesses. In fact, the creative destruction unleashed by a crisis always opens up opportunities for innovation.

    As a simple example, consider a New York based startup called On Deck Capital, Inc. As described in Monday's Wall Street Journal, the company loans money to small businesses. Instead of relying on individual loan officers to pour over episodic financial information and make decisions, the company has an algorithmic approach that uses software to analyze a company's day-to-day activities in a non-obtrusive way to assess credit worthiness. Its loans feature higher interest rates than loans from most banks, but lower than alternative sources.

    The company launched in May, and has already distributed $10 million in loans. It has suffered very few defaults. The current credit crisis and hesitancy of many banks to loan to even the best-run small businesses creates substantial opportunity for On Deck to extend its model.

    Llssez le bon temps roulez!

    What We Think We Know Can Hurt Our Negotiating Position

    I watched the debate last night with people who support my candidate.  They all also happened to be mediators, so they understand concepts like confirmation bias --the tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.

    I've been Twittering (shoot me! this is addictive behavior).  But all behavior has it's "up" side.  The "up" side to following my Twitter network's running real-time commentary of the debate was the exposure of my own (and my friends') confirmation bias.  I have both McCain and Obama supporters in my network and it was as if the two groups were watching entirely different debates.  And they were. 

    Because nothing is objective.  Let me repeat that.  Nothing is objective.  Everything we hear, see, touch, smell and taste is filtered through our entirely personal experiences, the collective or "received" reality of the society (micro or macro) in which we live, and interpreted based upon those experiences, which are further complicated by universal cognitive biases and particular core beliefs (our "operating principles").

    If nothing is objective, there is no truth beyond that which one has faith in. ("faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.")

    Yes, I know, the scientific method.  But you and I don't test our beliefs, opinions, perceptions and conceptions by the scientific method.  We hear, we see, we smell, we taste, we touch and we respond.  We opine.  We believe we are right.

    So I said to my friends in the middle of the debate, "we're an example of "confirmation bias" and they took issue with me. And I let it go because I wanted to listen more than to impose my own view of our collective experience.  And I was Twittering, lord help me, with some people who didn't share my bias.

    I missed statements made by McCain entirely.  It was if I hadn't even