PBI Online Course # 9505

Conducting Post-Negotiation Assessments

© 2016 Pennsylvania Bar Institute. All rights reserved.

iii

Foreword

Improve upon your prior experiences by assessing the outcome of your negotiations. Learn key questions to ask yourself to enhance your future discussions and how to determine what worked and what you could have done differently.

We are especially grateful to our instructor, Prof. Charles B. Craver of The George Washington School National Law Center in Washington, DC, for the significant time and effort he devoted to developing the course and preparing written materials.

Pennsylvania Bar Institute Gail P. Granoff, President Erin Tate, Program Attorney

September 2016

iv

v

Biography

INSTRUCTOR

Prof. Charles B. Craver

Professor Craver is the Freda H. Alverson Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School, where he regularly teaches a course on Legal Negotiating. He was formerly associated with Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco, where he specialized in employment and litigation practice. Professor Craver is a member of the American Law Institute, the Criminal Law, Labor and Employment Law, and Alternative Dispute Resolution Sections of the American Bar Association, the International Society for Labor and Social Security Law, the American Arbitration Association, the Association for Conflict Resolution, and the National Academy of Arbitrators. He is also affiliated with the Lawyers Mediation Service. Professor Craver is author of Effective Legal Negotiation and Settlement (LEXIS: 8th ed. 2016), The Art of Negotiation in the Business World (LEXIS 2014), Skills and Values: Legal Negotiating (LEXIS 3rd ed. 2016), and The Intelligent Negotiator (Prima/Crown nd 2002), and co-author of Legal Negotiating (West 2007), Skills & Values: Alternative Dispute Resolution (LEXIS 2013), and Alternative Dispute Resolution: The Advocates Perspective (LEXIS: 5th ed. 2016). He is also author of Can Unions Survive? The Rejuvenation of the American Labor Movement (N.Y.U. Press: 1993) and co-author of Employment Law Treatise (2 Vols.) (West: 5th ed. 2014), Employment Law Hornbook (West: 5th ed. 2015), Human Resources and the Law (B.N.A. 1994), Labor Relations Law (LEXIS: 13th ed. 2016), Employment Discrimination Law (LEXIS: 8th ed. 2016), Collective Bargaining and Labor Arbitration (Michie: 3rd ed. 1988), and Labor Relations Law in the Public Sector (Michie: 4 ed. 1991). Professor Craver has published numerous law review articles on dispute resolution and labor/employment law. Professor Craver received his B.S. from Cornell University in 1967, his Master's Degree from the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations in 1968, and his J.D. from the University of Michigan in 1971. Before joining the George Washington University Law Faculty, he taught at the Universities of Illinois, California, Davis, Virginia, and Florida. He has received Outstanding Teacher Awards at three different law schools.

vi

vii

Table of Contents

Post‐Negotiation Assessments ................................................................................................. 1 Prof. Charles B. Craver

I. Lawyers Negotiate Regularly ........................................................................................ 1 A. Few Ever Ask Themselves How They Have Been Doing ...................................... 1

II. To Improve Skills Must Learn from Prior Interactions .............................................. 2 A. Were You Well Prepared ...................................................................................... 2 B. Determined Own – and Other Side’s – Bottom Line .......................................... 2 C. Determined Elevated Goals for Different Items Involved ................................... 3 D. Did You Establish Good and Logical Opening Position ...................................... 3 E. Did You Phrase Offer as Seeming Gain to Counterpart ...................................... 3 F. Did You Carefully Plan Your Negotiation Strategy .............................................. 4 G. Did You Have a Good Preliminary Stage ............................................................. 4 H. Did You Have Good Information Stage ............................................................... 4 I. How Did You Disclose Your Own Important Information ................................... 5 J. Critical Information Stage Considerations ........................................................... 5 K. Bargaining Techniques ......................................................................................... 5 L. Concession Patterns ............................................................................................. 6 M. Closing Stage ........................................................................................................ 6 N. Cooperative/Integrative Stage ............................................................................. 6 O. Agreement/Nonagreement Assessment ............................................................... 7 P. Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................... 7 Q. What Did You Do That You Wished You Had Not Done ...................................... 7 R. What Did You Not Do That You Wished You Had Done ..................................... 8

III. Maintain Negotiation Skills......................................................................................... 8

viii

POST‐NEGOTIATION ASSESSMENTS

Charles Craver

Freda Alverson Professor of Law

George Washington University

Author, Effective Legal Negotiation and Settlement (8th ed. 2016 LEXIS); Skills & Values: Legal Negotiating (3rd ed. 2016 LEXIS); The Art of Negotiation in the Business World (2014 LEXIS);  The Intelligent Negotiator (2002 

Prima/Crown); coauthor, Legal Negotiating (2007 Thomson/West); Alternative Dispute Resolution; Advocate’s Perspective (5th ed. 2016 LEXIS); Skills & Values: Alternative Dispute Resolution (2013 LEXIS)

Copyright by Charles B. Craver

LAWYERS NEGOTIATE REGULARLY

•WITHIN OWN LAW FIRMS

•WITH OWN PROSPECTIVE AND CURRENT CLIENTS

•WITH OUTSIDE PARTIES ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENTS

•ONE OF MOST BASIC LAWYERING SKILLS

•FEW HAVE HAD TRAINING IN THIS AREA

FEW EVER ASK THEMSELVES HOW THEY HAVE BEEN DOING

•THEY MOVE FROM ONE NEGOTIATION SITUATION TO ANOTHER

•THEY TEND TO USE THE SAME APPROACH OVER AND OVER AGAIN

•THEY MAY BE DOING WELL, BUT COULD PROBABLY DO BETTER

1

TO IMPROVE SKILLS MUST LEARN FROM PRIOR INTERACTIONS

•AFTER MORE CRITICAL NEGOTIATIONS, TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO EVALUATE HOW YOU DID

•WHAT MIGHT YOU HAVE DONE WRONG

•WHAT SHOULD YOU HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY

WERE YOU WELL PREPARED

•KNEW ALL FACTUAL, LEGAL, ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, CULTURAL ETC. ISSUES

•UNDERSTOOD OWN CLIENT’S VALUESWITH RESPECT TO DIFFERENT ISSUES

•TRIED TO DETERMINE FACTORS AFFECTING OPPOSING SIDE

DETERMINED OWN – AND OTHER SIDE’S – BOTTOM LINE

•BEST ALTERNATIVES YOU HAD TO A NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

•TRANSACTION COSTS OF AGREEMENT AND NON‐AGREEMENT

•WHAT HAPPENED TO COUNTERPART IF THEY GOT NO AGREEMENT WITH YOU?•PLACED YOURSELF IN COUNTERPART’S SHOES

2

DETERMINED ELEVATED GOALS FOR DIFFERENT ITEMS INVOLVED

•DID YOU ESTABLISH BENEFICIAL – BUT REALISTIC –GOALS FOR EACH ITEM•WHICH TERMS WERE ESSENTIAL, IMPORTANT & DESIRABLE

•WHEN IN DOUBT REACHED HIGHER

•GOALS HAD TO BE REALISTIC OR WERE NOT MEANINGFUL BENCHMARKS

DID YOU ESTABLISH GOOD AND LOGICAL OPENING POSTION

• IMPACT OF ANCHORING ON COUNTERPART•GENEROUS OFFER EMBOLDENS OTHER SIDE• LESS GENEROUS OFFER UNDERMINES COUNTERPART’S CONFIDENCE

•MUST BE RATIONAL TO BE PERSUASIVE

DID YOU PHRASE OFFER AS SEEMING GAIN TO COUNTERPART

•PERSON CHOOSING BETWEEN SURE GAIN AND POSSIBILITY OF GREATER GAIN OR NO GAIN IS RISK AVERSE

•PERSON CHOOSING BETWEEN SURE LOSS AND POSSIBILITY OF GREATER LOSS OR NO LOSS IS RISK TAKER

3

DID YOU CAREFULLY PLAN YOUR NEGOTIATION STRATEGY

•HOW DID YOU EXPECT TO MOVE FROM OPENING POSITION TO FINAL ACCORD

•WHAT TACTICS DID YOU PLAN TO USE

•DID YOU ANTICIPATE LIKELY COUNTERPART TACTICS AND PLAN APPROPRIATE COUNTER MEASURES

DID YOU HAVE A GOOD PRELIMINARY STAGE

•DID YOUESTABLISH RAPPORTWITH OPPOSING SIDE

•DID YOU ESTABLISH POSITIVE BARGAINING ENVIRONMENT

•DID YOU USE ATTITUDINAL BARGAINING TO COUNTERACT NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR BY COUNTERPART

DID YOU HAVE GOOD INFORMATION STAGE

•DID YOU INITIALLY ASK MANY BROAD, OPEN‐ENDED QUESTIONS TO GET OTHER SIDE TALKING

•DID YOU ASK WHAT/WHY QUESTIONS•TO ASCERTAIN RELEVANT ISSUES•TO ASCERTAIN UNDERLYING INTERESTS

4

HOW DID YOU DISCLOSE YOUR OWN IMPORTANT INFORMATION

• IF VOLUNTEERED, NOT RESPECTED DUE TO REACTIVE DEVALUATION

•SHOULD MAKE OTHER SIDE WORK TO ASCERTAIN YOUR REAL INTERESTS

•USE OF BLOCKING TECHNIQUES TO COUNTER INAPPROPRIATE QUESTIONS

CRITICAL INFORMATION STAGE CONSIDERATIONS

•DID YOU LISTEN CAREFULLY FOR VERBAL LEAKS BY OTHER SIDE

•DID YOU LOOK FOR INFORMATIVE NONVERBAL SIGNALS

•WHO MADE THE FIRST OFFER AND HOW DID IT AFFECT INTERACTION

BARGAINING TECHNIQUES

•WHICH TECHNIQUES DID YOU EMPLOY AND HOW EFFECTIVE WERE THEY

•WHAT OTHER TECHNIQUES MIGHT YOU HAVE EMPLOYED

•WHICH TECHNIQUES WERE USED BY THE OTHER SIDE AND HOW DID YOU WORK TO COUNTERACT THEM

5

CONCESSION PATTERNS

•WERE CONCESSIONS MADE ON AN ALTERNATING BASIS OR DID ANYONE MAKE CONSECUTIVE POSITION CHANGES

•DID YOU MAKE PRINCIPLED CHANGES THAT WERE RATIONALLY EXPLAINED

•WERE YOU CAREFUL NOT TO RUSH THE CONCESSION PROCESS

CLOSING STAGE

•HOW DID THE PARTIES CLOSE THE DEAL

•DID EITHER SIDE MOVE TOO QUICKLY AND CLOSE MORE OF REMAINING GAP

•DID EITHER SIDE BID AGAINST ITSELF WITH CONSECUTIVE CONCESSIONS

COOPERATIVE/INTEGRATIVE STAGE

•ONCE TENTATIVE AGREEMENT REACHED, DID PARTIES TRY TO EXPAND PIE

•DID THEY LOOK FOR WAYS TO IMPROVE RETURNS ACHIEVED BY BOTH SIDES

•DID THEY EXPLORE INNOVATIVE ALTERNATIVESTHAT MIGHT BENEFIT BOTH SIDES

6

AGREEMENT/NONAGREEMENT ASSESSMENT

• IF AGREEMENT REACHED, DID EITHER SIDE APPEAR TO GET BETTER RESULTS

• IF NO AGREEMENT WAS ACHIEVED, WHAT MIGHT PARTIES HAVE DONE TO HAVE BROKEN IMPASSE

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

•DID PARTIES MISREPRESENT CLIENT VALUES/SETTLEMENT INTENTIONS•OK UNDER COMMENT 2 TO MODEL RULE 4.1

•DID THEY MISREPRESENT MATERIAL FACTUAL/LEGAL/ECONOMIC ISSUES

•WOULD YOU TRUST COUNTERPART WITH RESPECT TO FUTURE DEALINGS

•DID YOU ENGAGE IN UNETHICAL ACTS

WHAT DID YOU DO THAT YOU WISHED YOU HAD NOT DONE

•WHAT MISTAKES DID YOU MAKE

•DO YOU THINK COUNTERPART WAS AWARE OF YOUR MISTAKES

•HOW COULD YOU AVOID SUCH MISTAKES IN FUTURE INTERACTIONS

7

WHAT DID YOU NOT DO THAT YOU WISH YOU HAD DONE

•WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY

•WHAT SHOULD YOU DO DIFFERENTLY IN FUTURE BARGAINING SITUATIONS

•MOST SIGNIFICANT QUESTION TO IMPROVE FUTURE INTERACTIONS

MAINTAIN NEGOTIATION SKILLS

•OCCASIONALLY READ NEW BOOKS ON BARGAINING INTERACTIONS

•TAKE IN‐HOUSE OR EXTERNAL NEGOTIATION SKILLS COURSES

•ALWAYS LOOK FOR WAYS TO IMPROVE YOUR BARGAINING PROFICIENCY

8