Approaching Negotiations with Unyielding Opponents

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.

Tough questions in negotiation aren’t about curiosity. They’re tactics to weaken you—deflect and stay strong. Ever felt cornered in a negotiation by questions like:   ❌ "What’s the lowest price you’d accept?" ❌ "Do you have other offers?" ❌ "How soon do you need to close the deal?" These aren’t just casual inquiries. They’re strategic plays to uncover your BATNA, reservation point, and urgency—the very things that determine your leverage. Answering them? That’s like handing your opponent a blueprint of your weaknesses. But here’s the secret: You don’t have to answer. 🚨 Here’s what NOT to do: 🚫 Honest disclosure ↳ Revealing critical information may put you at an immediate disadvantage. 🚫 Declining to respond ↳Flat-out refusing to answer makes you look defensive or like you have something to hide. 🚫 Lying outright ↳ If they catch the lie, your credibility is gone, and so is the deal. 🚫 Paltering (misleading with half-truths) ↳ You might think you’re being clever, but it erodes trust and makes you seem manipulative. 🚫 Dodging (changing the subject vaguely) ↳ Sounds evasive and only makes the other side push harder for real answers. So what’s the right approach? Deflection. I’ve spent decades negotiating deals, training executives, and—let’s be honest—learning the hard way that the best negotiators don’t dodge, lie, or stall. They deflect confidently, revealing information that strengthens their position without sacrificing leverage. Tough questions test how much you’ll concede. Here’s how to handle them: 🔹 Redirect to Their Interests ❓ "What’s the lowest price you’ll accept?" ✅ "What’s most important to you—price, speed, or flexibility?" 🔹 Reframe the Discussion ❓ "Do you have other offers?" ✅ "I’m speaking with a few parties, but I’m most interested in the right fit." 🔹 Control the Timing ❓ "How soon do you need to close?" ✅ "It depends on what we’re solving together—what’s your ideal timeline?" Here’s the kicker: You CAN answer questions about your priorities, interests, and preferences. Sharing what you value—without revealing your bottom line—builds trust while maintaining control. Negotiation isn’t about hiding—it’s about controlling the flow of information. Answer strategically, not reactively. Here’s how to prepare so you never get caught off guard: 1️⃣ Anticipate tough questions.  ↳ Walk into a negotiation unprepared, and you’re volunteering for a tactical beatdown. 2️⃣ Brainstorm strategic responses.  ↳ Pick a response that keeps your cards close but doesn’t make you look like a weasel. 3️⃣ Practice deflection.  ↳ If you can’t say it smoothly, you’ll sound as awkward as a teenager asking someone to prom. What’s the toughest question you’ve faced in a negotiation? Drop your experience below.

Some defendants come to mediation to settle. Others come to watch. I was recently in a mediation, like so many before, where a co-defendant showed up just to spectate. They didn’t contribute. They didn’t engage. They just sat back and said, “If this gets close, we’ll be the cherry on top.” Translation: You do all the work. We might toss in a few dollars if we like the result. Here’s the problem with that approach: it’s not negotiation. It’s freeloading. And here’s how I handle it: 1. Pull them aside early. Let them know your view of their exposure, and your expectations. If they’re not willing to engage meaningfully, they’re going to be boxed out of the process. Make sure the next offer you send opposing counsel just has your name on it. Leave the co-defendant hanging. 2. Leverage your position with opposing counsel. Tell plaintiff’s counsel you’re there to negotiate. You’re serious. You’ve put money on the table. Then float a pro tanto settlement where one defendant settles out, leaving the rest behind. Sometimes that changes the energy in the room. 3. If necessary, raise the pressure. If the co-defendant continues to coast, make it clear you’re adverse and willing to share useful information with opposing counsel if you settle and they don’t. Trading information for a deal happens all the time. 4. Be cautious of cross-claims. Don’t get blindsided. Before you exit a global mediation, weigh any contribution or indemnity exposure from the co-defendant. No point settling today just to get sued tomorrow. 5. Before you walk, give them one last chance. Pull the co-defendant aside. Let them know you’ve got a deal they’re not part of . . . yet. Sometimes, that’s the moment they lose their nerve and come to the table. Next time a spectator shows up to your mediation, sideline them and make your best deal.

I once asked a prosecutor about a client who had used a blowtorch to break into a T-Mobile store and steal 100 phones. His case looked hopeless — until I asked one simple question. When negotiating with prosecutors, I don't start with what I want. I start with: "What's most important to you in this case?" That question changed everything for my client. The prosecutor told me he needed two things: • The store owner wanted significant jail time • He needed to show the victim justice was served My client had one priority: avoiding deportation. These interests seemed incompatible until I proposed an unusual solution: • My client would serve 8 months in jail (more than typical) • We'd modify the charge to avoid triggering deportation The prosecutor got his jail time to satisfy the victim. My client avoided deportation. Everyone walked away satisfied. After 16+ years defending cases, I've learned that effective negotiation isn't about threats or posturing. It's about creating an environment where both sides can openly share what they truly care about. This approach works because: • It calms everyone's defensive reactions • It reveals interests beyond stated positions • It creates space for creative solutions When someone feels threatened, they can't think clearly about potential overlaps in interests. My job is to make the opposing side comfortable enough to share what's really driving their decisions. Sometimes there's no overlap of interests. That's okay. You can't manufacture common ground where none exists. But when that overlap does exist — like in my blowtorch case — finding it can create outcomes neither side thought possible. What's your approach to difficult negotiations?