|
Note: This simulation is also available in a four-party version (with roles for two lawyers and two clients) here.
Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact
chouse@law.harvard.edu
or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 781-239-1111 (outside the U.S.)
SCENARIO: Susan Garfield has a billing dispute with John Eazer, owner of a local garage, over some work done on Garfield's car. Finding the bill significantly higher than the original informal estimate, Garfield angrily confronted Eazer. Eazer prepared a second bill at an even higher figure. Frustrated, Garfield returned to the garage after closing time with a spare key and drove her car home, without paying anything. Eazer turned to his child-in-law, an attorney, wishing to file a criminal complaint. When phoned, Garfield referred the attorney to her father, a senior partner in a local law firm. Garfield's father is letting one of his young associates handle the case. MECHANICS: This case takes 30-45 minutes to negotiate, either one-on-one or two-on-two. Debriefing can take from 45 minutes to 2 hours. TEACHING MATERIALS: - Role specific:
- Confidential Instructions for:
- John Eazer's Attorney
- Susan Garfield's Attorney
- Optional Mediator (Spanish version only)
- Sample Preparation Memo
- Teacher's package (30 pages total):
- All of the above
- Teaching Note (English version only; non-English versions do not include a Teaching Note)
PROCESS THEMES: Anchoring; Apologies; Attorney/Client relations; Authority; BATNA; Bluffing; Communication; Education, as a means; Emotions; Ethics; Joint gains; Information exchange; Lawyering; Legitimacy; Litigation analysis; Meaning of "success"; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Partisan perceptions; Public opinion; Relationship; Separating the people from the problem; Systems of negotiation; Threats; Yesable propositions MAJOR LESSONS: Tension between empathy and assertiveness, especially in the context of a long-term relationship. The relevance and uses of objective criteria. Negotiating in the shadow of the law (and under the threat of a possible lawsuit). Balance among short-term and long-term interests, including financial, relationship, reputation, and emotional interests.
Role of agents (such as lawyers) in negotiating a resolution to an emotional dispute between clients with a long-term relationship. Questions about what constitutes "success" in this negotiation? Is it making the other side back down? Avoiding litigation? Getting a "fair"deal? What are the criteria for a "good" outcome in negotiation?
|
