Logo
  • Email
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter



This website is authored by Lester Levy, Esq.
a founding member of JAMS.

  • About
    • About Lester Levy
  • The Basics of Environmental Mediation
    • What types of Environmental Cases can be mediated?
    • The Benefits of Environmental Mediation
    • The Environmental Mediation Process
    • Insurance Company Involvement
    • The Mediation Outcome
  • Case Studies
    • Case Study 1: Objectivity as Resolution Tool Provided Through A Neutral Expert
    • Case Study 2: Working Together
    • Case Study 3: Swift, Fair and Efficient: Awarding Compensation to Toxic Tort Victims
    • Case Study 4: Sequenced Regulatory and Insurance Negotiations
    • Case Study 5: How Communication Both Causes and Ends Conflict
  • Blog
  • In the News
  • Contact
You are here: Home / mediation / An Alternative Approach to Reaching a Settlement in Mediation

An Alternative Approach to Reaching a Settlement in Mediation

February 29, 2016 by Lester Levy Leave a Comment

Reaching Settlement through negotiation

In this blog, I address a common negotiating practice – and flaw – which many parties adopt in mediation.  I offer an alternative approach, which I believe is much more effective in reaching a settlement.

The prevailing orthodoxy is to enter into a settlement negotiation with the plaintiff demanding an amount substantially higher than what it will accept, and the defendant offering substantially less than it is willing to pay.   In my experience, this gamesmanship is nothing more than a distraction.  It does not advance the ball one iota.

If you don’t ask for what you want, or offer to pay what you think is reasonable, you reduce the chances that the negotiation will be a success.

If you believe, as I do, that most disputes have a discernible range of inherent settlement value, why waste time making proposals, which realistically have no chance of acceptance? Offers and counteroffers can be formulated and delivered near or within the zone of perceived settlement values.  These will be appreciated by the recipient as a rational –- and even possibly reasonable – and should result in a response which shares the same characteristics, i.e., is seen as rational and potentially reasonable, in return.

In so doing, time and effort is not wasted on absurdly high demands or offers, which neither the offeror nor the recipient thinks is representative of true settlement values and has no chance of success.  These proposals serve only to offend the receiving party and to confirm its belief that the other side is not interested in settlement.  Having been in the room where such offers were conceived and in the opposite room where they are delivered and considered, this practice causes two untruths to predominate the conversation at that time:  (1) that the two sides are much farther apart in their settlement expectations than they really are, and (2) that the ”other side” is not there in “good faith” to settle.  In almost every case, this is not a fair representation of the parties’ true settlement intentions.

A few ideas about how to avoid this time-waster:

  1. Make opening offers or counter-offers that are reflective of the realistic settlement value and deliver them, where possible, with an explanation of why that proposal was selected. Ordinarily, the combination of the offer itself and the explanation will set the negotiations on a positive path.  I am not advocating that either side begins the negotiation with its “last best and final” offer.  While that can be a powerful approach, it may come too soon in the discussion, because the other side will need to process the offering party’s analysis of the case.  Also, in today’s practice, the recipient might be caught off guard and might well not believe it.  A better approach, once a proposal is made near to that party’s stopping point, would be to “anchor;” to stay in that range and inform the other side that it is at or near the point at which there is no interest in moving farther.
  2. Don’t base your own negotiating strategy on what the other side is offering. All too often in many cases that I have handled, each party looks to the other party’s proposal as a guide as to what they should offer next.  This results in an entirely reflexive negotiation style, in which each party moves based on the other side’s last offer instead of implementing its own negotiation approach.  While cases settle this way, often one side’s “read” of the other side’s intentions is inaccurate.  An inaccurate read can inhibit necessary forward moving offers to get the case settled. (I am privy to this because in my role as mediator I will have spoken to both sides confidentially).

For these reasons, I often counsel the parties to negotiate from the outset based on their own informed view of the case, its potential settlement value and what they want to achieve.  That is a powerful negotiating style and it comes through in the process.  Otherwise, a party runs the risk of, ceding control of the pace and direction of the negotiation to its adversary.

Share this:

  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Related

Filed Under: mediation Tagged With: ADR, mediation, mediation process, mediation vs. litigation, negotation, negotiate, settlement

inter-generational-theft-Brexit-climate-change

The inter-generational theft of Brexit and climate change

In last week’s Brexit vote results, there was a tremendous divide between age groups. 73% of voters under the age of 25 voted to remain in the EU, while about 58% over the age of 45 voted to leave. This generational gap is among the many parallels … Read More...

drinking-water-regulation

Our Drinking Water Regulation Is So Weak Even Flint’s Water Got A Pass

WASHINGTON — Federal drinking water rules are so relaxed that not even the city of Flint, Michigan, has been cited for a violation, even though many Flint residents have been relying on bottled water for drinking and cooking since last year. The … Read More...

Environmental Mediation: A New Paradigm for Resolving Multi-Party Disputes

Some of you may already have seen a copy of my new ebook, in which I propose a new paradigm for resolving complex, multi-party environmental disputes. It relies on mediation -- not as it has been compromised and incorporated into standard litigation … Read More...

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Tweets by @environmentadr

Environmental Mediation Newsletter

Sign up to receive my environmental mediation newsletter on a monthly basis

Tags

ADR agriculture alternative dispute resolution Apple Apple phones big data Bio diversity Brexit class actions climate change contamination data data analysis eco-friendly environment environmental clean up environmental disputes environmental mediation environmental technology EPA farmed fish Flint global water challenge green living infrastructure legal strategy litigation alternative mediation mediation process mediation vs. litigation nature negotation New Jersey pollution oceans protected areas recycling renewable energy role of mediator settlement sustainability technology toxic tort water water contamintation water summit

About Me

lester-levy

I strongly believe in the value of mediation – said another way, environmental mediation really works. I would go even further: I believe that environmental disputes are perfectly suited to the mediation process – perhaps more so than any other area of legal practice. I have formed these views after mediating environmental cases for more than 20 years, throughout the United States, and having worked with thousands of lawyers, companies, insurance carriers, regulatory agencies and courts. My … Read more

My Latest Posts

  • The inter-generational theft of Brexit and climate change
  • Our Drinking Water Regulation Is So Weak Even Flint’s Water Got A Pass
  • Environmental Mediation: A New Paradigm for Resolving Multi-Party Disputes
  • Flexibility Is Key to Success in Mediation
  • Leaving the EU would put our environment at risk

Connect with Me

Lester Levy

JAMS- New York
620 Eighth Ave. (NY Times Building)
34th Floor
New York, NY 10018
P (212) 751-2700

JAMS- San Francisco
2 Embarcadero Center
Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
P (415) 982-5267

Copyright 2016-2020 Lester Levy | Site developed by Good2bSocial