Hamline Law Negotiation Team Finishes 3rd in the Nation

February 13, 2013 By Patrick Zitek Leave a Comment

The ABA Negotiation Moot Court National competition was held last weekend in conjunction with the ABA mid-year meeting in Dallas, Texas. Hamline Law’s team advanced to the national finals and placed 3rd overall. Over 100 law schools and over 200 teams compete in regional competitions in the fall, with the top teams advancing to the national competition. The national champion, the University of Oregon, was the team Hamline Law went head-to-head with in the final round. As a coach of the Hamline Law team, I accompanied the team to Dallas, and was proud to see the team perform at a very high level. The competition format calls for negotiation teams of two, and Hamline Law’s Max Bunge and Carrie Schneider did a remarkable job. I was proud to see Max and Carrie take control of the negotiation from the beginning and lay out their narrative, control the agenda, and frame the issues. They demonstrated a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the controlling law and of integrative/interest based negotiation. They advocated for their clients in a strong, professional manner. Congratulations Max and Carrie – a job very well done!

Filed Under: ABA Negotiation Moot Court, Negotiation Tagged With: Hamline University School of Law, Negotiation Moot Court

Speak Your Mind Cancel reply

Minnesota Business Law Updates

2013 Invention & Idea Show April 19 & 20

The Minnesota Inventors Congress is hosting an invention show in Redwood Falls, Minnesota on April 19 & 20. The show is designed to give inventors the opportunity to test market their inventions and talk with product development consultants and patent attorneys. The public is invited to attend, which allows the inventors to receive valuable feedback regarding the potential market for their invention. The Minnesota Inventors Congress has hosted an invention show since 1958.

The event is being held at the Redwood Area Community Center, 901 Cook Street, Redwood Falls, Minnesota. Minnesota Inventors Congress Inventor Resource Center has more details.

Competitive vs. Compromising negotiation styles: a fool’s choice

I recently read an article titled, “How men and women use deception in negotiations,” that demonstrates a common misperception about negotiation. The author explains her research questions as follows:

In our research we asked whether the use of deception was affected not just by a negotiator’s gender, but also his or her opponent’s gender; whether negotiators were accommodating, placing priority on their relationship with their opponent, or competitive, placing priority on achieving the best possible individual outcome; and by how trustworthy an opponent was.

The foundation of the research is based on the fallacy of insufficient options: it presupposes that a negotiator must either place more value on the relationship than on the outcome; or the negotiator must sacrifice the relationship with the other side to achieve their own optimal outcome. There is another, more preferred way: interest based negotiation. By understanding the principles and strategies of interest based negotiation, negotiators achieve optimal outcomes for both (or all) parties to a negotiation, and at the same time, preserve or enhance the relationship between the negotiating parties.

Interest based negotiation is neither accommodating, nor competitive: it places the focus of the negotiation not on positions – but on the underlying interests that form the positions. As Roger Fisher states in his book, “Getting to Yes,” in an interest based negotiation, the negotiators are tough on the issues and soft on the people. Interest based negotiation allows negotiators to be civil, to explore interests, and expand the options of acceptable agreements.

When I was first introduced to interest based negotiation, I had little to no concern for the other party’s outcome – I cared only about the outcome for my client. After all, I was hired to represent my client, not the other side. Interest based negotiation seemed like a soft and weak negotiation style and strategy. That belief changed the more I studied interest based negotiation. I came to realize that if I didn’t care about the other side, I ran the risk of reaching an agreement that wouldn’t be honored. If I “pulled the wool over the other side’s eyes” it wouldn’t take long before they became disillusioned with the agreement. Soon after that realization comes the inevitable conclusion that breaching the agreement is in their best interest. An agreement that satisfies the interests of both sides is a more durable agreement, and an agreement is only useful as long as it is being honored by both sides.

I also came to learn that interest based negotiation produces better outcomes for both sides. There are many published studies that prove this. Interest based (sometimes referred to as integrative negotiation), produces better results than any other style or strategic choice, including competitive, accommodating, or compromising.

The only downside to interest based negotiation is that the negotiator must truly understand the philosophical underpinnings of the strategy, and have a firm command of the skills required to break through positions and get to underlying interests. Like all forms of negotiation, it is a skill that can be learned and developed. If interest based negotiation is new to you, start by reading Fisher and Ury’s classic book, “Getting to Yes.” There are many resources available on interest based negotiation, but “Getting to Yes” is the origin of the strategy and is a good place to start.

Bill would prohibit employers from requiring job applicants to disclose social media passwords

Rep. Mary Franson introduced H.F. 293 which would prohibit employers from requiring job applicants to provide their passwords to social media sites as a condition of employment. The bill has been referred to the Labor, Workplace and Regulated industries committee. A poll taken by the House of Representatives Public Information Services shows nearly 93% of Minnesotans believe that employers should not be allowed to require employees to provide their social media passwords as a condition of employment. When was the last time you saw 93% consensus on any issue?

If you are an employer, it is important to understand what you can and cannot do regarding your employees use of social media – both during their time away from work, as well as at work. Creating and instituting a lawful, well designed internet/social media policy is a good starting point. Your policy should be a part of a comprehensive employee handbook and employment agreement that includes non-disclosure and non-compete agreements, work-for-hire agreements, and invention and intellectual property agreements. Your policies should be tailored to conform with both federal and state law – and not just where you are headquartered, but where you have employees and satellite offices. Unfortunately, your trade secrets and confidential information can be published to the world with the push of a button, and having policies in place that allow for injunctive relief and other appropriate remedies will protect your business in the internet age.