Preparing Clients for Negotiation

Clients have interests, needs, goals, and desires. Some of these cannot be fulfilled by the legal system. You need to help your client sort through all of this so that he or she understands what is possible through negotiation. The trick is to listen to your client deeply.
This is not a skill that is taught in law school. There are places to go to learn how to listen. I strongly recommend to young lawyers that they take a course in coaching, motivational interviewing, or the like. Learning how to probe the client's true needs and helping the client clarify them is essential in the process of preparing for negotiation.

As you prepare your client for negotiation, be sure to set clear boundaries of responsibility. Who needs to be in the decisional loop? In many cases, the settlement decision affects more than just the direct client. Make sure that you know who has to participate in the decision early on. Have all decision makers and influencers been thoroughly informed about the case, the negotiation, and a range of reasonable outcomes?

Spouses and business partners can easily be forgotten about. It is your job to make sure that they are fully informed, consistent with protecting attorney-client privilege. At the very least, you must inform your client to keep influencers up-to-date on case developments and the negotiation strategy. Again, a letter outlining all of this can be an important protection for you.

Who will be present during the negotiation? Generally speaking, you want all of the decision-makers at the negotiation if the negotiation is in the form of mediation or some other group conference. Sometimes, for strategic or tactical reasons, certain decision-makers might not be physically present. They should be available close by or available by telephone or Skype for consultation as a negotiation unfolds.

Who will have to be present to make a settlement agreement binding? Settlement agreements made during mediation are not binding unless all of the parties have signed the settlement agreement. Therefore, you must take great care to make sure that you know who will have to be present to bind everyone to a deal.

What will be the role of the client during the negotiation? This one is overlooked all the time. Most of the time, you want your client to be an active participant in the negotiation. Sometimes your client will take the lead; sometimes you will take the lead. This should be discussed ahead of time so that there is no confusion over roles during negotiations.

Another related problem has to do with personal accountability. Very few people have the courage to take personal responsibility for their actions. Many times, people will come to lawyers, hoping to shift responsibility for their actions away from themselves. In negotiation, clients are often confronted with the need to take personal responsibility for their actions for the first time. This can be a difficult pill to swallow. A conversation about personal accountability well before negotiation begins is therefore a good idea.

Some clients can become very emotional, often with ample justification. I will give you more information about emotions in the context of decision-making later on. However, recognize that all human beings are 98% emotional and 2% rational. Conflict and stress tend to shut down the prefrontal cortex and activate the emotional centers of the brain. Be prepared to deal with your client’s emotions.

Remember, the best way to win the game is to call it yourself.

Better still, change the game completely.

Douglas E. Noll
Mediator, Author, and
California Lawyer 2012 Attorney of the Year
for Pro Bono Service
Creator of Negotiation Mastery for the Legal Pro –
A new online course in cutting-edge legal negotiation
legalpronegotiator.com

 

Evolutionary Law and the Collapse of Society

Segment 1: Navigating a High Failure Rate Environment.

On this edition of The Doug Noll Show we speak with Rebecca Costa, an American sociobiologist who offers a genetic explanation for current events, emerging trends and individual behavior. Rebecca’s first book, The Watchman’s Rattle: A Radical New Theory of Collapse, questions our ability to thrive in the complex world we have created. Her website is http://www.rebeccacosta.com/.

 

When Rebecca lived in Silicon Valley in the 1980’s, she observed the exponential rate at which the pace was moving and came to the conclusion that there was little chance we would be able to keep up with that pace. She says these days we’re all struggling with a high failure rate environment. It’s difficult to sort through all the information that bombards us each day and decide what’s relevant and what’s not. The odds are stacked against us to pick the right career, the right health care program, etc. There is too much information, and the number of wrong choices is exponentially greater than the number of right choices.

 

Evolution is lagging behind what is needed to succeed in society. Our brain is not designed to deal with the complexities and the great amount of information coming toward us each day. It exceeds our physiological and cognitive ability.

 

Segment 2: The History of Human Civilization.

Evolutionary Law says we need to adapt or die. However, we can only adapt at a certain rate. Rebecca sees a consistent pattern throughout history: First civilizations hit a cognitive threshold, where the problems are beyond their “pay grade” and they become gridlocked and unable to act. Next, there is mass confusion among leadership and individuals in the society between what is an empirical fact and an unproven belief. Public policy becomes highly irrational because it’s based on unproven beliefs instead of empirical evidence. Lastly, an event comes along that “does a society in” and the society collapses. This doesn’t mean that everyone dies; it just means that the society breaks into smaller units and then starts to ascend again. This is the history of human civilization.

 

Segment 3: Insight.

So what tools do we have to prevent an ultimate collapse? Rebecca sys for the first time in human history we can use science and medicine to watch what the brain is doing. For instance, scientists recently discovered a third form of problem solving: insight. Insight is the ability to connect two pieces of data in a novel way. Scientists can now predict that a person will have an insight about 300 milliseconds before they actually solve the problem. Our brains need to be consistently exercised and “warmed up” to deal with the complex problems of our day-to-day lives, thus stalling and perhaps preventing an ultimate collapse.

 

Segment 4:  

We are dealing with environmental changes that are beyond what we’re designed to do. We are not designed to respond to a long-term threat. The solution is to try to mitigate and train and catch up the brain. We can turn to neuroscience to help us adapt at a faster rate. We can train our brains and recognize that when we have a complex problem to solve, we need to invest in multiple solutions and expect a high threshold of waste.

  

To listen to the entire interview:

 

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

The Doug Noll Show Tonight Interviews International Advocate for Women Judithe Registre

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

Tune in tonight to the Doug Noll Show 7pm PT. My guest tonight is Judithe Registre, the program director at Plan International USA for the Because I am a Girl campaign, which creates sustainable projects in developing countries to give girls access to the most basic of human rights: clean water, food, healthcare, education, financial security, and protection from violence and exploitation. The lines are open for your questions and comments at   877-474-3302, or Internationally, 01 858-623-0126.

http://Bit.ly/8Sf4m

 

 

The Doug Noll Show Thursday Interviews International Advocate for Women Judithe Registre

On the Doug Noll Radio Show Thursday February 21st at 7pm Pacific, Doug interviews International Advocate for Women Judithe Registre, the director of Plan International USA for the Because I Am A Girl Campaign which creates sustainable projects in developing countries to give girls access to the most basic human rights: clean water, food, healthcare, education, and protection from violence and exploitation.

Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE www.planusa.org

The Doug Noll Show

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE The lines are open for your questions and comments at   877-474-3302, or Internationally, 01 858-623-0126.

http://Bit.ly/8Sf4m

 

 

Predicting the Negotiation Dance

Segment 1: Don Philbin, Master Mediator.

On this edition of The Doug Noll Show, we speak with Don Philbin, master mediator, 2011 Outstanding Lawyer in Mediation, and elected fellow of the International Academy of Mediators and the American Academy of Civil Trial Mediators. Don is also the creator of PictureItSettled,  a highly-intelligent predictive analytics software tool that guides lawyers and mediators through the negotiation process. To find out more about PictureItSettled, please see http://www.pictureitsettled.com/.

 

Don did commercial litigation for years, and then moved to corporate law. Eventually he got his MBA and ended up in management. Don tells us he did litigation and transactions for years, and it finally dawned on him that he could do them together…which is basically what mediation is: assisting people in their negotiation to put deals together instead of going to court.

 

Segment 2: 98% emotional, 2% rational.

So when we have lawyers representing parties in mediation, what’s the role of the mediator? Don tells us that the mediator is “not the other side.” The mediator comes in as a neutral third party and offers options for the two sides to explore. Well-trained mediators have studied behavioral economics, neuroscience and psychology and know how people react in stressful situations. They can help frame the issues and choices for parties.

 

Our host, Doug Noll, says we’re 98% emotional and 2% rational, and lawyers are no different. Lawyers are generally poor negotiators and are subject to the same emotional mistakes that everyone else makes. Additionally, lawyers typically do not get the appropriate negotiating training in law school. The mediator’s role is to be able to spot when cognitive and decisional errors are interfering with decision making and gently guide the opposing parties in a direction that moves them toward settlement instead of toward impasse.

 

Segment 3: The Negotiation Dance.

So what gave Don the idea that negotiations were predictable enough to analyze? He says that once you are involved in case after case, you start to notice some similarities across cases. There seems to be a social convention that progress will be in increments. People mimic each other’s behavior to a certain extent. Parties will cooperate or get competitive within their negotiation, predictably. Mediators know intuitively that there is a certain rhythm to the day, from beginning offers to the ending deal. There is a pattern to the negotiation dance.

 

Segment 4: Reducing the Emotionality of Decision Making.

PictureItSettled is a predictive analytics online software program. Once you start making moves in negotiation, the settlement profit will start to predict where the deal is going to end up. It will predict when and where the intersection will take place. Don tells us it takes 2 offers on each side before PictureItSettled has enough information to predict the outcome. Of course it gets better with each additional round. Let’s say you want to run “what if” scenarios before you make an offer. It can anticipate the actions on the other side. If you have the software, you have a good idea of where the settlement will land. It reduces the emotionality in the decision making around settling lawsuits and allows people to stay cognitively clear.

 

To listen to the entire interview:

 

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Assessing Intangibles

This post is about assessing the intangibles of a lawsuit and factoring them into your preparation.

The first thing to realize is that trials are beauty contests. A significant amount of social psychological research has established that jurors form opinions about the case very early in the proceedings. Jury selection and opening statements are the two most important parts of the trial. If you have not convinced the jury by the close of opening statements of the righteousness of your cause, you will probably lose. For the rest of the trial, each juror is going to use the confirmation bias to seek facts that support his or her initial belief. Therefore, you have to assess what kind of story you can tell, and how that story compares to the story that the other side is likely to tell.

You also have to assess how likable your client is and how likable the other guy is. You have to be brutally honest in this process. You want to believe your client and thinking that he or she is going to be liked. However, any warts are going to be magnified intensely in the courtroom.

You also have to assess your experience and opposing counsel's experience. In all likelihood, you have had very little trial experience. Do not be surprised if you are up against a more senior lawyer who also has very little trial experience. I have known senior partners who portray themselves as litigators who have never tried a jury trial.

Experience does count, however. So if your opponent has a lot more trial experience than you do, you have to take that into account. That does not mean that you will lose just because you lack experience. You simply have to factor in that the more experienced trial lawyer is less like to make mistakes that you are.

You can find out a lot about opposing counsel on the Internet. It is amazing what people disclose about themselves in social media, on blogs, in podcast, and videos. It is much more likely that you will get this kind of information about younger lawyers. The vast majority of lawyers in their 60s do not even know what social media is and do not want to mess with it. However, you can still research counsel through verdicts and settlements to see what kinds of verdicts, if any, they have experienced.

Another factor concerns the type of typical juror found in your jurisdiction. You need to think about your best jury and your very worst jury. Some cases lend themselves well to jury trials, while other cases would put a jury to sleep. Think about the kinds of people that live in your community, their political beliefs, their ethnicity, their religious beliefs, their interests, and their hobbies.

You also have to consider who the trial judge might be. If you have a judge assigned for all purposes, as is usually the case in federal court and in some state courts, you will have a pretty good idea of what you are facing. Make a few phone calls to colleagues about their experiences with your judge and learn as much as you can about his or her background, beliefs, biases, and attitudes. Judges are human just like everyone else and are not immune from cognitive biases and decisional distortions. The more you can understand how your judge processes information, the better you can assess what might happen in that court room.

Remember, the best way to win the game is to call it yourself.

Better still, change the game completely.

Douglas E. Noll
Mediator, Author, and
California Lawyer 2012 Attorney of the Year
for Pro Bono Service
Creator of Negotiation Mastery for the Legal Pro –
A new online course in cutting-edge legal negotiation
legalpronegotiator.com

Congress, the Constitution and the Declaration of War

Segment 1: Simply Incapable of Declaring War.

Our guest on this edition of The Doug Noll show is Dr. Brien Hallett, an associate professor at the Matsunaga Institute for Peace & Conflict Resolution at the University of Hawaii. Dr. Hallett began his career as an English professor but soon got hooked on the topic of war and peace, and ended up switching gears to attain his Ph.D. in Political Science. His latest book is titled Declaring War: Congress, the President, and What the Constitution Does Not Say.

 

Dr. Hallett tells us that the constitution says Congress should make the decision for war or peace, but that actually never happens. He thinks Congress is simply incapable. In fact, the U.S. has been unable to declare war since 1789, even though we have been involved in numerous wars since that time.

 

Segment 2: A Constitutional Duty.

Essentially the President is allowed to start a war without asking permission from Congress. If Congress actually undertook its constitutional duty to argue and debate over the declaration or war, we would have a much more public and robust discussion about whether or not we should use force.

 

Dr. Hallett believes there are two main reasons this does not happen.  First of all, for 5,000 years Kings and Emperors have made this decision. Everyone expects the war leaders to make the decision whether or not to go to war. Secondly, Congress is too large and busy, and its primary function is to pass domestic laws. It is not built to accomplish a function such as declaring war. It is simply unable.

 

Segment 3: A Fourth Branch of Congress.

If Congress is not taking on the authority to declare war, then the people of the U.S. have very little say on whether or not we use force. This is a fundamental problem and a major flaw in the constitution. Dr. Hallett thinks we should change the constitution and he is proposing removing the power to make foreign policy (and declare war) out of Congress and establishing it in an independent branch of government. This fourth branch of Congress would have 50 members and would be elected by the state legislatures. Their job would be to conduct foreign policy and review the relationships between the U.S. and countries around the world. They would identify problems early and solve them by peaceful means.

 

Segment 4: Declaring War: Congress, the President, and What the Constitution Does Not Say.

Dr. Hallett says his book is meant to be disruptive, and he acknowledges that his proposal is, currently at least, politically impossible. He is just trying to get people to consider the problem and look at alternatives. The first step is to start the debate. It is not a question of political will; it’s a question of political structure. Congress is structured so that it cannot worry about foreign affairs. It can’t do what the 2^nd Continental Congress did. That was a small group who would get together and discuss problems and find solutions. Today’s Congress is large and complicated - which is a good thing for domestic policy – but it doesn’t work for foreign affairs.

 

To listen to the complete interview:

 

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

The Attributes of a Master Negotiator

In this post, I want to talk a little bit about the attributes of a master negotiator.
I have mediated thousands of conflicts of all different kinds, both litigated and non-litigated. I have had the opportunity to work with some truly masterful negotiators. There are some uniform attributes and characteristics that are worth keeping in mind as you develop into a powerful, kick ass negotiator.
The first attribute is to recognize that negotiation is a process, not an event. In law school you are taught that the ultimate outcome is either a verdict or a decision on appeal. The focus is on the outcome for the client and not a lot of time is spent on all the processes. Thus, the conversations are around how to avoid mistakes, how to obtain the best outcomes for clients, and the focus is on winning.
In negotiation, the outcome will be defined by how well the process is managed. Master negotiators understand that process determines outcome. Master negotiators will spend considerable time making sure that the process is functioning properly to move the parties towards settlement. In short, master negotiators focus on process.
 Master negotiators also recognize that legal negotiation involves decision-making in the face of great uncertainty and risk. For the client, the stakes of a lawsuit can be very high. No one can predict what a jury will do in any given case. Therefore, sending a dispute to trial for decision is not quite as random as a roulette wheel, but sometimes seems that way.
Master negotiators study disciplines far beyond the law. They want to understand the principles behind cognitive biases and decision-making errors. They understand that emotions drive decisions and therefore knowing about emotions in human brains is just as important as knowing about the applicable principles of law in a case.
Master negotiators also know that negotiation always contains a tension between competition and cooperation. On the one hand, negotiators wish to obtain the best outcome possible for their clients. But if they are too competitive, the negotiation will collapse in impasse. Thus, cooperation is needed. However, if cooperation is to freely given, the possibility of exploitation by the other side is always possible. The master negotiator manages that tension effectively.
The master negotiator cultivates a strategic mindset directed towards helping the client make the best decision possible with an eye towards the deep consequences of that decision in years ahead. Master negotiators recognize hardball players instantly. They have learned how to identify hardball tactics, label them, and deal with them by focusing on the process of negotiation. They do not stoop to emotional, ad hominem attacks or gratuitous comments at the ethics or behaviors of opposing counsel or parties.
Master negotiators also recognize that being a lawyer does not equate to being a master negotiator. Master negotiators have learned that law school teaches analysis based on an adversary ideology. Law school teaches students how to become appellate judges, read appellate decisions, and write appellate memorandums. Generally speaking, those skills are not used in negotiation. Although more law schools are offering elective courses in mediation and even in negotiation, these offerings are considered to be fringe courses. Many law professors do not consider the skills of negotiation to be worthy of instruction in the law curriculum.
Since so much of the law curriculum is based upon the reading and analysis of appellate decisions, litigation is taught as a zero-sum game in which there can only be a winner and a loser. In every case, law students must understand why one side lost, and the other side won. As they distill out the rules of law from the cases, they are indoctrinated in a philosophy that lawyering is about winning cases for clients. The core values of negotiation, which include cooperation, compromise, and collaboration with opposing counsel and parties are not only ignored in law school, they are disdained.
Master negotiators recognize that negotiation outcomes are not always as gratifying as trial outcomes, but neither are they as depressing. Since negotiation involves compromise, there is no high similar to the rush of winning a jury trial. In addition, lawyers do not measure themselves by their skill in negotiation. Rather, they seek reputations for toughness, trial competency, and dogged persistence against all odds. When was the last time you heard a lawyer described as a great negotiator?

Remember, the best way to win the game is to call it yourself.
Better still, change the game completely.

Douglas E. Noll
Mediator, Author, and
California Lawyer 2012 Attorney of the Year
for Pro Bono Service
Creator of Negotiation Mastery for the Legal Pro –
A new online course in cutting-edge legal negotiation
legalpronegotiator.com

The Mixed Motive Game in Negotiation

In this post, we are going to look at the two fundamental forms of negotiation.

The first form of negotiation, and the one that is most familiar to lawyers, is called distributive negotiation. In distributive negotiation, the parties are negotiating how to divide or redistribute things. Thus, in a lawsuit, negotiation is often about how much money the defendant will pay the plaintiff for the case to go away. This type of negotiation is called distributive because value is being distributed from one party to another.

The second form of negotiation is called integrative negotiation. In integrative negotiation, the parties are looking for ways to expand their options and create value. In contrast to distributive negotiation, integrative bargaining involves problem-solving and value enhancement. An example of integrative negotiation might occur in a lawsuit involving two businesses over breach of contract. While the parties might negotiate for a fixed payment to settle the claim, they might also find a way to expand, and renew, their business relationship so that both sides benefit from the negotiation.

Sometimes you hear the terms zero-sum and win-win. These are important terms to understand in negotiation and are often misused because they are misunderstood.

In a zero-sum situation, the only way that I can gain is if you lose. In other words, there is no way for both of us to come out ahead or be winners. This is the pure definition of competition because in competition, there can only be one winner.

Distributive negotiation is often viewed as a solution to a zero-sum problem. But a zero-sum problem confronts us with a fundamental strategic problem in negotiation. You might have already come across this and wondered about it.

The dilemma is “Do I compete and play hardball?”or “Do I cooperate?”

The problem is this:

If I am too competitive, I will blow a chance for settlement.
But if I am too cooperative, I might give up too much.

This is the fundamental dilemma facing every negotiator.
 
How do I avoid impasse, but not give up everything to get a deal?

Sometimes, a highly cooperative approach, such as integrative negotiation can foster a deal. Other times, a more competitive approach, such as distributive negotiation, is more effective.

The takeaway is that the nature of the problem dictates the negotiation process to be used. As long as the conflict remains centered on things and is not too emotional, distributive negotiation and evaluative mediation will tend to work. However, distributive negotiation is not efficient or effective at high levels of conflict or when emotions are in play. In these kinds of disputes, either traditional or facilitative mediation is often needed to de-escalate the emotions before there can be distributive bargaining. It is important for you to remember these two principles:

•    As long as the conflict remains emotional, integrative negotiation processes are effective and efficient.
•    Integrative negotiation is not efficient or effective at low levels of escalation or when things are solely in play.

You should not be surprised to know that most negotiations involve emotions and most negotiations involve things. Therefore, you must be skilled at both integrative and distributive negotiation. You must also be comfortable with evaluative, traditional, and facilitative mediation processes because a good mediator will use all three in a given process.

Remember, the best way to win the game is to call it yourself.
Better still, change the game completely.

Douglas E. Noll
Mediator, Author, and
California Lawyer 2012 Attorney of the Year
for Pro Bono Service
Creator of Negotiation Mastery for the Legal Pro –
A new online course in cutting-edge legal negotiation
legalpronegotiator.com