Approaching Negotiations with Uncompromising Personalities

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

The best negotiators are: 1. Calm  2. Creative 3. Patient Almost daily, I deal with an upset or rude person on the other end of a negotiating table. If I do not handle the situation properly, a deal could be derailed for a client. One recent case comes to mind... A major impasse had been reached in settlement discussions. On one particular call, the attorney representing the other side told me to "take the deal or litigate." Instead of getting upset with the attorney and firing some witty comment back, I took the following approach: 1. I did not react to the comment. Instead, I simply said "I will take this back to my client." In doing so, it was possible to avoid a knee-jerk reaction and create space between the demand and a thoughtful response. 2. I spoke to our client about how we might creatively change the deal terms to get around the impasse. Having a little flexibility from the client was key. 3. I obtained the client's buy-in that a settlement would not come quickly.... but that a settlement was still better than the time/money needed to litigate. This helped a lot when negotiations ended up dragging on for another few months. ### After 6 months, the case finally settled. The client got mostly what they wanted. The bigger win? We avoided litigation. Doing so saved the client $100k+ and a lot of time. #negotiation #negotiationstrategy

She grilled me for 90 minutes. Argued on price, terms, and payment. Then signed a $120K deal the next day. The negotiation call was scheduled for 30 minutes. It lasted 97. Our first deal of the quarter, and it was going terribly. The VP challenged everything: – Demanded 90-day payment terms when we needed 30 – Pushed for a 22% discount on already-tight pricing – Questioned our data retention periods line by line – Asked for custom SLAs we'd never offered before My palms were sweating. At one point, she said: "This is simply too expensive for what you're offering." I almost caved. Almost offered that extra discount. Instead, I took a breath and asked: "Can you help me understand what specifically your team is trying to build?" What followed was a 40-minute deep dive into their actual problems. The real cost of missed insights in their customer calls. The manual work their team was doing. The tone completely shifted. She ended with: "Let me think about this overnight." I was sure we'd lost it. But at 6:42 AM the next day, the signed contract hit my inbox. With a note: "Thanks for taking the time yesterday. Your team clearly understands our challenges." One year later, they've renewed twice and expanded to a $340K account. That day changed how I view "difficult" negotiations: When someone pushes this hard, they're not trying to kill the deal. They're trying to make it work so that they can buy. Now when negotiations get tough, I see it for what it really is: Not resistance. Commitment. What's a deal you thought you were losing... that became your best customer?