For the first hour of conflict, my neutral gave to me a round table with a great view
For the second hour of conflict, my neutral gave to me two succinct summaries
And a round table with a great view
For the third hour of conflict, my neutral gave to me three paraphrases
Two succinct summaries
And a round table with a great view (more…)
To those of us who work in ADR and who know something about the negotiations process, the current wrangling in Washington about the “fiscal cliff” is not a surprise. Consider these familiar ABCs that are characteristic of negotiation:
“Anchoring” is the strategy of initiating negotiations with a position that is very favorable to one’s own interests. Negotiators don’t start with their bottom line. They anchor the negotiations with a position that is as favorable as it can be without poisoning the discussion. Some may argue that the leaders on both sides missed the part about not poisoning the discussion, but they certainly have anchored at positions that are favorable to them. (more…)
A recent decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals shows the uneasy balance between the rules of confidentiality in an ADR process, and the rules of evidence in a court trial. In the family law case Horner v. Carter, the Indiana court has interpreted its state rules of ADR and Evidence so that clients may introduce evidence from confidential ADR sessions for a much broader range of reasons than the court had previously allowed. While the case is limited to Indiana, and currently under appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court, other ADR professionals may wish to tune in for two reasons. First, other states beyond Indiana may follow similar rules. Also, the case is an interesting example of the uneasy balance that can exist between the protection and privilege of ADR, and how that veil may be pierced unexpectedly in a court proceeding. (more…)
