Why should you negotiate before litigation?

In general, it's better to negotiate rather than litigate, if possible. Most disputes can be resolved if two people remain reasonable and try to negotiate a settlement. Doing so also has the benefit of avoiding costly attorney fees and litigation costs. It may be more confidential than a trial: The final judgment is a public record, but your settlement conversations are kept private.

Ninth, use the very strong social obligation of the reciprocity rule. Cialdini explains that the rule of reciprocity obliges people to return a favor with a favor. Interestingly, the reciprocated favor often has a greater or different value than the initial favor. Use this concept to manipulate your opposition during negotiations.

Use positive, respectful and generous negotiating behavior to generate it in return and facilitate the influence of the other party to accept proposals for agreement. Express the desire to meet the needs of the opposition so that they can return the favor by meeting their needs. Grant the opposition's request for something less valuable to trigger an obligation of reciprocity before making a settlement proposal. When negotiating with your law office, be a friendly host who provides food and a comfortable room so that, when making a settlement proposal, they feel more inclined to want to pay generosity by accepting the proposal.

Similarly, grant discovery extensions and show courtesy to the opposition's needs in litigation prior to negotiations, so that the other party corresponds. Since 1980, sophisticated businessmen have trusted George to apply the meticulous preparation, attention to detail and devotion to their clients that he learned from legendary trial attorney Louis Nizer. A graduate of Harvard University and Harvard Law School, George has more than 35 years of distinguished experience in settlement, litigation, mediation and arbitration, which he has used to negotiate high-risk agreements for senior executives and select business clients across the United States. Successful negotiation requires commitment from both parties.

Both sides must gain something and both sides must lose something. You must be prepared to give up something that you think you are entitled to. You can't expect to defeat your opponent or win a negotiation, either because of the power of your negotiation skills or the convincing force of your logic. This is not to say that good negotiating skills are irrelevant.

In most cases, there are a variety of possible outcomes. An expert negotiator can often strike a deal near the top of the range. In addition, during an agreement negotiation, they become more “liked” by validating their needs and proposals, showing empathy, actively listening, speaking with respect, avoiding character attacks, expressing interest in meeting their needs and seeking compensation to meet their needs in matters that are of low value to a client. Many lawyers know how to appear flexible, through pre-negotiation planning for concessions, but they stubbornly cling to their initial evaluation, even after new information becomes available during negotiation that changes the facts under which that assessment was made.

With this approach, lawyers often engage in a “tug-of-war” style negotiation where they take strong positions and try to get as many settlement dollars as possible for their opposition clients. While negotiation (whether through lawyers, mediators, or on your own) should lead to better outcomes for contenders in most cases, litigation may be preferable in the following situations, writes Jeffrey R. That can allow you to move in smaller increments than your opponent, and it will be easier for you to make small concessions to keep negotiations going. Settlement costs associated with the time lawyers must spend negotiating, drafting proposals, etc.

Expert negotiators generally agree that the plaintiff's first offer should be high but reasonable, and the defendant's low but reasonable. This tactic invites the opponent to bluff and interrupt negotiations if the offer is unacceptable; therefore, it should be reserved for situations where you are prepared to go to trial if the offer is rejected. Use subcommittees: Assign one person from each negotiation team to try to resolve difficulties outside the negotiating table. In this video, Professor Guhan Subramanian discusses a real-world example of how seating arrangements can influence a negotiator's success.

If the number is perceived as insulting, the other party may end the negotiation, present an equally offensive anchor, or engage in poor bargaining behavior, all of which obstruct the ability to influence. Even those lawyers who recognize that this happens see little advantage in the open negotiation of the agenda, preferring the tacit agreement that arises from the process of exchanging offers. The negotiation will consist of a series of offers and counteroffers, arguments and positions, as both parties make cautious concessions that correspond to their uncertainties about possible weaknesses in their cases. Regardless of the negotiation strategy employed, lawyers can improve the results of their agreements by better persuading others to accept their proposals.

. .