In law school, students are taught to separate emotions from the issues, the
law, and to analyze whether or not a particular case or statute applies
to a specific set of circumstances. On May 5, 2010, Larry Kramer, The
Dean of Stanford Law School stated, "If you think of traditional legal
education as teaching people how to spot problems, how to identify what
the problems are, what we never did anything about was teaching them how
to solve the problems." That skill set comes with time and experience.
Not just legal experience, but life experience. We learn when to choose
to fight.
"Problem solving negotiation means that the parties can
do better than they might otherwise do, especially if they are
employing AN UNNECESSARILY UNPRODUCTIVE ADVERSARIAL APPROACH." (emphasis
added). The "culture of adversarilism" too often leads to behaviors
"with an emphasis on argument, debate, threats, hidden information,
deception, lies, persuasion, declarations, and toughness. These
behaviors, in turn, often escalate and lead to the most common results
of adversarial bargaining -- stalemate or mindless mid-point compromise.
Even a 'win' will be a loss if the other side is so beaten down or
regretful that it will resist complying with a negotiated agreement....
Effective legal problem solvers must learn to think differently before
they can learn to act differently. This is the science and art of
negotiation."
