I just read a provocative article entitled, “Litigation as Violence,” by Vincent Cardi (West Virginia), 49 Wake Forest L. Rev. 677 (2014). You may want to assign this nine-page article (and/or this post) in your classes, which may stimulate valuable discussion about the consequences of lawyers’ work for their clients – and themselves. Professor Cardi … Continue reading Litigation as Violence
In a series of posts, I described significant problems with the traditional negotiation paradigm of two coherent models, positional and interest-based negotiation (or other labels for essentially the same models). This paradigm has been helpful in moving us forward in recent decades. But simply saying that something was a interest-based or positional negotiation not only … Continue reading How Can You Get a Piece of the Action?
Here’s a call for papers from Susan Raines (Kennesaw State), the editor-in-chief of the Conflict Resolution Quarterly (CRQ). CRQ focuses on the role of the neutral in conflict resolution, the processes of conflict resolution, and the causes/cures of conflict at every level from the interpersonal to the international. Our journal prides itself on the importance … Continue reading Conflict Resolution Quarterly Call for Papers
As Art reported, William Mitchell and Hamline Law Schools plan to merge. Best wishes to all our friends at both schools. Both have wonderful DR colleagues and have been great innovators in legal education. Hopefully, people there will like the new arrangements. Of course, even positive change can be stressful and some people may not … Continue reading Was the Mitchell-Hamline Negotiation a “Win-Win”?
In previous posts, I argued that there are serious problems with the general consensus on negotiation theory reflected most clearly in Getting to Yes. I described problems with the system of negotiation models, which assumes that most or all negotiations can fit into two models of highly-correlated variables (or a few variations of these models). … Continue reading We Need a Better Consensus about Negotiation Theory
In Part 1, I argued that there are fundamental problems with the system of negotiation models. In this part, I describe actual negotiation cases from my study to illustrate the problems. As you read about them, consider that I am now focusing primarily on problems with descriptive theory – basically a kind of language enabling … Continue reading Problems with the System of Negotiation Models, Part 2
I subscribe to the Best Practices for Legal Education blog, which has a lot of good posts. Here’s one by Michele Pistone (Villanova) suggesting that teachers carefully use words in defining their teaching and learning goals.
Touro Law Center has initiated a new Journal of Experiential Learning. Thanks to Best Practices for Legal Education blog for sharing the news.
SSRN subscribers will soon see a passel of my old articles scrolling across their screens and may wonder, “What the heck?” The heck is that, thanks to a new scanner, I was able to make nice pdf files of some articles I wrote before I started posting pieces on SSRN. With the benefit of hindsight, … Continue reading Oldies But Goodies
Based on my study of lawyers’ actual negotiations, A Framework for Advancing Negotiation Theory: Implications from a Study of How Lawyers Reach Agreement in Pretrial Litigation, I have reluctantly concluded that the generally-accepted understanding of negotiation theory is seriously flawed and that we need a better theory. The current framework relies primarily on two models … Continue reading Problems with the System of Negotiation Models, Part 1
