Approaches For Negotiating With Someone Who Plays Hardball

When I'm negotiating, I tend to AGREE with the other side. Sounds counter-intuitive. But it's enabled me to close 7-figure settlements. Most lawyers think negotiations are about being tough, standing your ground, and not giving an inch. I take the opposite approach: tactical empathy. Here's how it works. When opposing counsel says something like, "That's a ridiculous settlement demand. We can never possibly pay that much," I don't fight back. Instead, I validate them: "I can see why you would say that. I'm sorry for that. What can I do to come up with an offer that makes sense for you? My client is unfortunately stuck here." Their reaction? Complete confusion. They're prepared for a fight. They've got their counterarguments lined up. But when I validate their feelings instead, their entire script falls apart. The best part? They start giving me information I can use to negotiate against them. When faced with validation instead of opposition, lawyers suddenly start explaining their real constraints, their client's actual position, and sometimes even what number they might actually be able to get approved. All because I didn't argue. I've found this approach works especially well on lawyers because they don't even know what's happening. They're so used to adversarial negotiations that genuine validation short-circuits their usual approach. The key elements: • Validate their emotions • Acknowledge their position • Ask questions instead of making demands • Keep validating even when they try to be difficult This isn't just about being nice – it's strategic. By removing the confrontation, you force them to either engage constructively or look unreasonable. Next time you're in a difficult negotiation, try validation instead of opposition. It feels counterintuitive, but the results speak for themselves. After all, the goal isn't to win the argument – it's to get what your client needs.

Today's contract tip is about negotiating with a counterparty who declares that something is non-negotiable. Sometimes when a counterparty says this statement, it is true. The provision is one that they need for regulatory reasons. Or they may have all the leverage and my client has none. No amount of explaining or cajoling is going to make a difference. In those cases, I might prod a bit but then usually move on. If it is important to me, I’ll bring it back up at the end when I have the final changes that I try to get to close the deal. But not all non-negotiable statements are made in that context. Some are made by people who embrace what I call the “Be a Jerk” style of negotiating. Here’s how I approach these situations. I ask a series of questions to start a discussion of why. I keep my tone calm and curious throughout. I say things like “So why is this provision off-limits and not the other ones?” and “Help me understand why we cannot even discuss it.” I try to force a conversation about risk and the parties' relationship. I keep asking questions, prodding for a rational discussion of why, until I see some softening and backpedaling. Once I do, we usually can move to a real conversation about it. My goal is to get the other side to consider our changes instead of just slamming the door. I’ve found the most critical part of this process is to not meet that statement with anger or emotion. Ask questions that pull out the inconsistency of that mindset with the rest of the relationship. How do you deal with the non-negotiable declarations? #NeverLearnedActiveListening #HowToContract #contracts #lawyers

If you want to close more deals: Stop fighting with difficult people. - Some buyers are aggressive. - Some sellers are stubborn. - Some people just make deals harder. But the truth is that: Most people aren’t difficult for no reason. I worked on a deal with a buyer who kept saying, “Delays kill deals.” He wanted everything, contracts, due diligence, meetings immediately, even nights and weekends. At first, I thought he was wrong. His urgency frustrated the seller and their attorney. It was doing more harm than good. I was ready to push back. But then I asked: Why does he feel this way? Turns out, his last deal fell apart because the seller dragged things out, and then picked another buyer. He wasn’t being unreasonable. He was reacting to past pain. Once I reassured him he was the only buyer, everything changed. The tension disappeared. The deal moved forward. And that’s when I learned something crucial: Difficult people aren’t always difficult. They’re protecting themselves from something you don’t see. Here’s what I took away: 1) You don’t have to like their approach to see where they’re coming from. 2) You don’t have to agree with someone to understand them. 3) You don’t have to prove them wrong to move forward. Success isn’t about being right. It’s about listening, adapting, and seeing the bigger picture. Next time you’re in a conflict, ask yourself: Am I reacting, or am I actually listening? It might just save your deal or a relationship.