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)

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.

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!

Thanks to @NeilDenny of Lawyer 1point9  for the head's up.

Priming Legal Negotiations is the winner of this week's Golden Asshole Award. /*  

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.

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.

• THE ASK - name your price first and to make your first number aggressive but not outlandish
  • you need at least three numbers to negotiate with - high, medium and bottom line
  • start with your high number
  • consider linking your high number to performance contingencies, i.e., if I do X and Y as I've promised, then my total compensation for 2011 will be Q; these performance contingencies can also be tied to the company's performance in 2011.
  • don't give all your reasons for your raise at the same time; you need a good reason for each of your high, medium and bottom line numbers - each round of negotiation requires "a number and a reason"
  • when making concessions, consider trading items of high value to you and low value to your employer, i.e., it doesn't cost your employer anything to let you work from home one or two days a week but it may well save you significant monies over the course of the year in transportation and incidental costs (this is called "log rolling")
  • go to your medium number reluctantly and stress that you are making a concession and expect reciprocity
  • go to your bottom line number only when you've completely run out of options

• PRETEND YOU ARE NEGOTIATING FOR SOMEONE ELSE
  • we women have a particular challenge in negotiating for ourselves because asking for ourselves contravenes gender norms
  • the research shows that we negotiate as effectively as men when we're negotiating for another but not when doing so for ourselves - so make yourself your own client and go out there and get the best deal for her

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!

At 8 PM Women on the Move gets down to business with attorney Victoria Pynchon, author of the Settle It Now Negotiation Blog, who has been called a “master of conflict resolution and deposition skills.”

Victoria recently became a regular contributor to Forbes.com’s “On the Docket” column.

You can call in with questions! 

Call-in Number: (347) 857-2102

One last time!! before the door closes on the opportunity to have your picture in the WLALA Tribute book and to share two tables with your fellow neutrals at the WLALA annual Installation Dinner and Gala. 

I have three more places at the table and on that ad.  I need your check for $175 and a .jpg by Friday to put you in it!  Please, let's show WLALA how eager we are to cross-refer business.

This is a particularly good year to join us as we begin the first WLALA ADR initiative in its nearly 100 year history.

ONE HUNDRED YEARS! of women lawyers - way past time to reach and firmly occupy the higher reaches of the profession.  We've been graduating from the nation's law schools in nearly equal numbers with men for more than 20 years.  My own U.C. law school class (King Hall, '80) was 50% women thirty years ago.

The ADR pipeline is full of competent -- indeed glorious -- women.  Yet the statistics at the top remain grim.

Chopped Liver?

Why is your ADR practice not everything that Tony Piazza's or Eric Green's or even Steve Cerveris' is?  Research shows that both men and women have negative implicit attitudes toward women in leadership and authority positions.  The good news is that women are slightly less pre-disposed than are men to picture a man in a suit when they're looking for access to money and power.  I've had at least half a dozen women commercial litigators look straight at me and say "I don't know any women mediators."

Huh????

Followed by, "well their names are never on the lists [circulated in my firm]."

Women, with their slightly reduced inability to "see" women in authority positions, are our foot in the door. And the new WLALA ADR Committee is our opportunity to open that door wide.

As a member of the CPR-led Joint Task Force on Diversity, I have heard the verdict of JAMS and the AAA.  "The market has spoken.  Commercial lawyers just don't hire women and minorities."

What????

We're advocates, for goodness sakes.  When we come into town we have to register our skills of persuasion with local law enforcement authorities.  We're change agents, opinion makers, powerful holders of the keys to the kingdom. 

And the market has spoken? 

We make the market!

This year's ADR Committee is dedicated to closing the gaping void between men and women neutrals.  We're not going to ask for special treatment, picket the LASC's ADR office, pass new laws or burn our ADR certificates, Super Lawyer plaques, Ivy League diplomas, or our bras (not at this age!). 

We're going to market like no one has ever marketed before and we're going to do so as a group so that we don't each hesitate, as we women tend to do, to promote ourselves and our services.

2010 and 2011 will be the years in which top women will refer to other top women.  2010 and 2011 will be the years in which we close the income gap not only between men and women neutrals but between men and women lawyers (its 40% at the top).  2010 and 2011 will be the years in which we make a market younger women lawyers will be entering in the next decade and the one after that -- one in which they'll flourish after they grow weary of fighting over interrogatory objections and e-discovery.

How?

Marketing.  Proctor and Gamble does  not say, "well, the market doesn't want a new improved laundry detergent."  P&G asks "how?" not "can we?"  And it certainly never says "we give up, the market has spoken."

We're putting our first stake in the ground on September 16 at the  WLALA Gala.  There's no event more important for women neutrals to attend this year. 

Our current attendees will appear in two full-page ads in the Tribute Book and two color flyers to be distributed at the dinner. 

To date those women are Eleanor Barr, Joan Kessler, Lynne Bassis, Katherine Edwards, Laurel Kaufer, Linda Klibanow, Denise Madigan, Stephanie Maloney, Deborah Rothman, Jan Frankel Schau, Gretchen Taylor, Caroline Vincent, Diane Wayne, Linda Bulmash, Lisa Gates (my She Negotiates business partner), Kathy Balin, and Erica Bristol. 

We need three more women neutrals to fill table two.  If you want to sit at another table, ask a woman litigator to change places with you while whispering "cross-refer" in her ear.  The key is that you'll be there to network.  You'll show your support to WLALA by showing up and WLALA women (among the most entrepreneurial in the Bar) will see your beautiful face and panel affiliation or business name in the  Tribute Book while enduring the inevitably tedious speeches at these events. 

Do you want to double your income by 2012?  If we've lasted this long in a profession that was solidly male when so many of us were in high school, we can close this gap by coming together and just doing it.

And if the $175 is too steep a price during these recessionary times or if you'll be out of town or otherwise engaged on the 16th of September, please let me know that you want to be a member of the new WLALA Committee by return email.

Our first event will be an afternoon on arbitration in October with CPR CEO Kathy Bryan and other powerful women attorneys, GC's and CEO's who arbitrate, either as advocates, as clients or as arbitrators.  The panel will be moderated by complex-commercial AAA arbitrator Deborah Rothman.

Shock me!  Let's fill Table Three!!

I look forward to hearing from you and to kicking the last pitiful shards out of that darn glass ceiling.

Best,

Vickie

Victoria Pynchon, Esq., Incoming Chair, WLALA ADR Committee
ADR Services, Inc. and She Negotiates Consulting and Training

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.

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.  

1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.
   

When the above symptoms exist in a group that is trying to make a decision, there is a reasonable chance that groupthink will happen, although it is not necessarily so.  Groupthink occurs when groups are highly cohesive and when they are under considerable pressure to make a quality decision.  When pressures for unanimity seem overwhelming, members are less motivated to realistically appraise the alternative courses of action available to them.  These group pressures lead to carelessness and irrational thinking since groups experiencing groupthink fail to consider all alternatives and seek to maintain unanimity.  Decisions shaped by groupthink have low probability of achieving successful outcomes.

From What is Groupthink  at the Psychologists for Social Responsibility site.

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

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.

What both Lisa and I are finding with our women clients (women are Lisa's market and my quarter-market) is that they're always doing stuff for free!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Let's not waste our time analyzing why we do this.  Let's just stop doing it.  

Run on over to the Commercial ADR Blog right now to see - yes - Lisa's and my free Twitter negotiation seminar where I take Lisa through a very short negotiation role play to help her negotiate a price for her services rather than simply saying "yes."

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.

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.

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.

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.