In elementary school we periodically used to be given basic physical coordination tests in gym class. They involved a few essential skills although the only one I remember clearly was throwing and catching. The teacher used to toss yarn balls and we had to catch them without getting imaginary peanut butter on ourselves (meaning we'd have to catch them in our hands and not against our chests, which would naturally cause an imaginary laundry disaster). If we didn't meet a certain standard of competence, we were assigned "extra gym," where a few times a week we would get pulled from our regular class for an extra physical education one. In theory it was a good program especially for kids like me for whom academics came easy but physical coordination required more effort. At least while we were younger and "extra gym," hadn't taken on a pejorative meaning. (For years afterwards in my family, if someone did something clumsy, the other family members might chortle mockingly, "Extra gym!")
I was thinking about the program the other day when I finished the latest assignment for the First Year Research and Writing course. This class, unlike the other major courses in the first year, are designed to give us practical training in the skills we'll need as lawyers. At least in theory. I find we are covering so many topics so briefly that it's questionable whether I'll walk away with any tangible skills I'd be confident in using subsequently. I fear that the best I can hope for is basic familiarity with the tasks in question so that when I'm out in the lawyer world and encounter them again at least my learning curve will be flatter.
The last assignment involved writing a settlement agreement after a negotiation. We were partnered with classmates and given a scenario to negotiate over. Since there is an odd number of students in the class I was partnered against two people. As a result I got smashed.
At first, when I walked away after the negotiations, I felt good about the deal we reached. Based on some of the possibilities that had come up my fictitious client could have done a lot worse. But as I thought about the result afterwards I realized that I didn't actually get him anything. The best I achieved was that he dropped his claim and was financially no worse for wear, except that now he was barred from ever pursuing his claim again. Oops? It was particularly tough being one person going up against two people because as I made progress with one, the other who had been less engaged would then swoop in and refuse to make the same concessions. Eventually I think I got as good a deal as I did because my tenacity lasted longer than theirs did. Tenacity can be handy, but it strikes me that better settlements are negotiated when it's not just a competition over whose advocate is more bull-headed than the other.
There is a professor at school who is a specialist in negotiation whom I'd met briefly last semester in preparation for the negotiating competition, my first formal exercise in the endeavor. That hadn't gone particularly well either, with my partner and I getting knocked out in the first round. So when this last negotiation went the same pathetic way, I emailed the professor in a panic. Surely there was SOMETHING that other negotiators know that apparently I don't. Perhaps he could fill me in?
He was nice enough to meet with me and so I got my law school equivalent of extra gym. Whether my negotiating skill has vastly improved has still yet to be determined, but really it's experience and practice that will ultimately make the difference. Still, the chance to discuss how to approach negotiations and debrief about the previous experiences was helpful. If nothing else my confidence increased since I won't feel it's an entirely new and unknown experience the next time such a situation comes up.
This was really posted on 3/9, but I've got a backlog of ideas so I decided to backdate it to keep the posts spread out. The meeting had actually taken place on 3/5 anyway.