Negotiating with terrorists

I went to hear Moty Cristal speak tonight.  Mr. Cristal is an Israeli professor of negotiation dynamics and a negotiating strategies consultant.  His company, Nest Consulting, provides complex negotiations and crisis management training, consulting and operational support to senior executives in the public and private sector in the US, Europe, Asia and the Middle East.  He was instrumental in negotiating the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit last year.  Many people have been critical of the deal, which exchanged more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for a single Israeli soldier.  However, Mr. Cristal is an expert in low-trust negotiations.  It is difficult to second guess decisions made in such situations. 

Everyone says you should never negotiate with terrorists.  But everyone does it when there is no other feasible or reasonable alternative.  The argument against such negotiation is that it will only encourage more terrorism.  But history does not support this theory.  No more Israeli soldiers have been captured, nor has there been any attempt to do so since Shalit’s release.  The more time that goes by, the harder it will be to blame any such incident on this negotiation.  The fact is that when terrorists negotiate, they may still be terrorists, but they are not engaging in terrorism while they do so. 

In a civil society, we never negotiate or mediate with parties whose members or representatives have killed members of the opposing party’s group.  And usually there is a deadline for the parties to negotiate a settlement or else a resolution will be imposed on them by some outside entity, like a court.  In the Middle East today, there is no such Sword of Damocles, so there is no motive for either side to negotiate or change positions.  Nonetheless, negotiations do go on.  Small issues constantly need to be resolved, regarding water, electricity, transportation and tourism.  Name-calling (terrorists, occupiers) never achieves anything.  Who knows.  One day, maybe the small negotiations will turn toward larger issues?

Opening day

I admit it. I’m a homer. I like my hometown professional baseball team, the Milwaukee Brewers. Today is the opening game of the 2012 season. After a first place finish in our division last year, hopes are high for another exciting and successful season. But even if they don’t win it all (and the Brewers never have), it is still good clean entertainment, usually outdoors.

What does this have to do with dispute resolution? I have written about conflict in sports before, (at least twice). It can be a good model for how we should handle conflict in the workplace and society in general. During the off season, we saw the controversy about Ryan Braun’s positive blood test for steroids. It was finally resolved through arbitration. Agree with the decision or not, it has the benefits of finality and closure. And it showed the importance of having some kind of relatively quick decision making procedure to resolve the dispute.

Conflict can be constructive. Even if we don’t get everything we want or hope for, engaging in a civilized discussion or game with your opponent ultimately puts the dispute behind you and lets you get on with your life. If we don’t win today’s game, there are 161 more to go. And then there is next season. In the meantime, enjoy the game and the opportunity for growth that civilized conflict provides. Baseball is one of the most civilized sports. No slap shots, slam dunks, sacks or kicks. Just some base hits and the opportunity to make it “home.” So enjoy the game and play ball!

Is it just business or is it personal?

After a trial is over, it is customary for opposing counsel to shake hands before leaving the courthouse. While many trial lawyers are highly combative and competitive, a trial is rarely a personal contest between lawyers. While lawyers like to win, they usually go on to fight another day. But some clients have difficulty understanding how lawyers can do battle in the courtroom for days (or sometimes weeks) and then shake hands when it is all over. Of course, a trial is not always the end of the dispute. There can be appeals, reversals and retrials. A trial might be merely one tool to gain leverage in getting the opposing party to do you what you want them to do. Ultimately, a final judicial decision will put an end to the dispute, but it does not necessarily put an end to the enmity between the parties.

Occasionally, litigation can be a “bet the farm” proposition. An attorney representing such a client should find that out before taking on the case. A mediator should also determine the parties’ financial situations as early as possible. Some litigants have nothing to lose in litigation (because they have nothing to start with). Others have everything to lose. Some are looking for vindication. In any case, everyone should keep in mind that the courts have the last word not because they are always right. Rather, they are right because the have the last word. (If anyone can find or remember who first said that, please let me know.)

In a civil society, we all must agree that if we cannot resolve our disputes by ourselves, the courts will do it for us. The alternative is the law of the jungle; survival of the fittest; might, not necessarily right. So, even if the dispute is personal, litigants would do well to learn what attorneys are trained to do:  shake hands and learn to live and fight another day.

Preparation

Mediators frequently complain that parties to mediation do not come sufficiently prepared to reach a settlement. But preparation is a two-way street. Mediators also need to prepare for each session. I prepare by reviewing any information sent to me by the parties, as well as reviewing my mediation training. Some of the things I have learned are recorded in my previous posts. Recently, I have read two excellent articles that help refresh me before each mediation encounter.

The first comes from FINRA’s current newsletter. (You don’t have to be FINRA arbitrator or mediator to subscribe.) The article contains nine tips for a successful mediation. One of those tips is to “be prepared,” but following all of the other tips is the best preparation.

The other article comes from the ABA and discusses 10 things lawyers love and hate about mediators. According to the author, one of the things lawyers love is when mediators prepare beforehand. Seems obvious, but again the other items listed in the article provide fertile ground for preparation by a mediator.

If you are a mediator and have any favorite lists that help you prepare for a mediation session, please leave a comment and let me and my readers know what they are.

An ounce of prevention . . .

Maybe it’s the economy. Or maybe it’s the latest negotiation tactic. Lately, I have conducted several mediations in which one party claims that it will file for bankruptcy if it does not prevail in the pending litigation. Collectibility is frequently an issue in mediation, but the spectre of bankruptcy raises it to a higher level. If a settlement is reached and the party who pays money then files for bankruptcy protection, will the recipient have to pay it back to the trustee to be distributed equitably to all creditors? In one case, the plaintiff alleged its business losses were due to conversion by a business partner — an intentional tort that could not be discharged in bankruptcy.

Of course, many business disputes, especially between partners, can be avoided with carefully worded contracts, partnership agreements or corporate documents. Unfortunately, in the recent cases I have mediated, the contracts and other documents were not carefully worded. In some instances, they were non-existent or, at best, inartfully drafted. Maybe the parties did not feel the need for written agreements, or maybe they were too cheap to pay attorneys to draft them. But I suspect that well-drafted legal documents would have come in handy when it came time to end the relationships or resolve disputes. In the absence of such documentation, the litigation became a he said/she said affair. And the mediation boiled down to “give me what I want” or “accept what I am offering” or else I’ll file for bankruptcy.

A transactional or business attorney’s best marketing tool is to tell a client to “pay me now or pay the litigators later.” In the cases I have seen, parties who scrimped on business planning and documentation have gotten what they paid for. Trouble.