Unit 5- Pre-trial Negotiation and Settlement

Unit Introduction

Alternative means of dispute settlement are efficient and cost effective. They save
time and avoid the cost involved in litigation. Moreover, such conflict resolution
schemes significantly reduce case load of courts thereby making it possible for the
judiciary to allocate adequate time and attention to cases that are brought to
courts.

Both parties can obtain a win-win solution during negotiation and settlement,
because the concessions on both sides would enable each party to gain some
benefit. This unit does not deal with the various forms of Alternative Dispute
Settlement Mechanisms because they belong to the course designed for this
particular purpose. It suffices to say that parties steadily lose control over their
case as they move towards litigation.

Parties in dispute have the settlement of their case in their own hands at the
stage of negotiation because they are free to mutually determine the elements of
the settlement. Negotiation is “a consensual bargaining process in which parties
attempt to reach agreement on a disputed or potentially disputed matter.”1
Negotiation “differs from other methods of dispute resolution in the degree of
autonomy experienced by the disputing parties who are attempting to agreement
without intervention of third parties such as judges, arbitrators and mediators.”2

In mediation, disputing parties “work with a neutral third party, the mediator,
to reach a mutually acceptable agreement.”3 The parties still have a considerable

1 Jacqueline M. Nolan-Haley (1992) Alternative Dispute Resolution in a Nutshell (New York:

West Publishing Co.), p.13
2 Ibid

3 Ibid, p. 56

Unit 5- Pre-trial Negotiation and Settlement 103

degree of control over the outcome of their dispute. Unlike litigation, where a
judicial decision is binding, “no such compulsion exists in mediation” because
“the mediator aids the parties in reaching a consensus. It is the parties themselves
who shape the agreement.”4

The parties progressively lose their authority to determine the outcome of the
dispute as they move onto arbitration in which parties in private disputes have the
option to voluntarily submit their case to a neutral third party after which they
shall be bound by its decision. Unlike court litigation, the parties have the
authority to choose their arbitrator/s. Analogous to judicial decisions, however,
the disputing parties absolutely lose control over the outcome arbitral awards.

This unit focuses on negotiation and settlement, and the following readings and
exercises focus on lawyering skills that are required during the negotiation to
settle disputes before trial.

__________

4 Ibid

104 Pretrial Skills and Trial Advocacy: Brief Notes and Materials, February 2009
 Section 1- Reading on Negotiation and Settlement

1. Negotiating a Settlement 5 (before trial)

The dynamics of negotiation, in the litigation as well as other fields, has received
increasing attention in recent years. This has occurred, in part, because litigation and trial
costs have made settlement more desirable, but also because there is a growing awareness
that learning negotiation methods can improve a lawyer’s ability. The literature on
negotiation methods for lawyers is rapidly expanding, and a number of books are
particularly useful for litigators. …
Trying a case inherently involves risks since neither party can ever predict (the
decision in a given case) with absolute certainty. … Settlements are simply the way in
which lawyers eliminate the risks in the litigation process. Since risks are at the core of
that process, you need to do whatever you can to minimize them. This requires that you
adequately prepare the case for trial since the more you know about the case, the fewer
the uncertainties and unknown factors, and hence the less risk. It also requires that you
realistically evaluate the case for settlement purposes. The more relative uncertainty there
is in your opponent’s mind, the more flexible and compromising his position is likely to
be. Factors that increase uncertainty in your opponent’s mind are your own thorough
preparation of the case, your willingness and ability to go to trial if necessary, and your
client’s willingness and preparedness for trial.
What negotiating approach should you use? Negotiation styles are as varied as
lawyers are numerous. Nevertheless, there are two basic approaches that are followed
today. The first is competitive: the lawyer makes an initial high offer, keeps the pressure on
the opponent, and makes as few concessions as possible. The atmosphere is entirely
adversarial, and the projected attitude is one of strength. This approach, perhaps the
traditional way in which settlement negotiations were conducted, has benefits principally
that any settlement reached will probably be a good one for the lawyer with the more
competitive lawyer. Its drawback is that probably a lower percentage of cases settle under
this approach. A possible conclusion to draw is that this approach is effective where you
have a strong case and don’t need to compromise.
The other approach is cooperative: the lawyer emphasizes the parties’ shared interests,
shows a willingness to make concessions, and makes a more realistic initial offer. The
atmosphere is conciliatory, and egos are kept on the sidelines. The benefit of this approach
is that probably more cases get settled. On the negative side, the settlement may not be as
good for your client since the other side may try to take advantage of your attitude.
Accordingly, this approach is probably more effective when both parties are equally
strong.
The cooperative approach is becoming more accepted, probably because it seems to
improve the possibilities of reaching an eventual agreement. While it has several
characteristics, the key to the cooperative approach is to avoid taking rigid positions.
Instead, the lawyers who are negotiating focus on the mutual interests of their clients,
avoid personalizing the conflicts, and expand the possible solutions before objectively

5 Mauet, Pretrial, Supra Unit 2, Note 8, pp. 367 - 369

Unit 5- Pre-trial Negotiation and Settlement 105

reviewing the possible solutions to settle on a resolution of the conflict. This approach, by
avoiding personalities and rigid posturing, becomes a joint effort to reach solutions.
Your settlement strategy, in addition to determining your negotiation style, also needs
to include where and when the meeting will be held, who will make the first settlement
overture and first offer, who will be discussed. First, decide where and when the
settlement meeting will take place because serious negotiations are usually conducted
face-to-face. Most lawyers, of course, prefer to have the meeting in their own offices on
the theory that they will have the “home court” advantage. This may be unacceptable to
the other side, which may insist on a neutral site. Some lawyers like to start first thing in
the morning; others like to start later and run late. These are all details, but they are
important and need to be worked out in advance. Most lawyers do not bring their clients
to the meeting because the client’s presence is usually not conducive to the give and take
atmosphere needed to have productive negotiations. However, the lawyers know where
their clients can be reached during the meeting in case direct communication becomes
necessary.
Decide whether you should make the first settlement overture and the first actual offer.
Lawyers traditionally have been reluctant to initiate settlement discussions or to make the
actual first offer on the theory that starting the process will be taken as a sign of weakness.
Lawyers always want the other side to start the process and make the first offer. In recent
years, however, there has been a change, with more lawyers recognizing that starting the
process is hardly a sign of weakness, provided that the lawyer has prepared properly and
has made a reasonable offer. The more important question is: is this first offer realistic? If
so, it will start the negotiation process. If not, the other side will summarily reject it and
the process will be ended before it ever starts.
The initial offer should be somewhat higher (if plaintiff) or somewhat lower (if
defendant) than that party’s best result assessment. This allows for the possibility,
although unlikely, that the other side has assessed the case differently and is willing to
settle on the basis of that first offer. More commonly, this initial offer gives you leeway
during the negotiation process, particularly since the other side will expect you to be
flexible.
Decide on the first concession and whether you should make it. Like the first offer,
lawyers have traditionally been reluctant to make the first concession on the ground that
it signals weakness and an eagerness to settle. In recent years, however, there has been a
change here as well, as lawyers realize that it is not the concession itself that conveys a
weakness, so long as it is coupled with an insistence that the other side reciprocate with
mutual concessions. If only one side is willing to make concessions, that is not a
negotiation at all.
Decide on the order in which you plan to take up the smaller issues that need to be
negotiated. Most lawyers prefer to tackle the smaller issues first, with the larger or more
difficult issues left for later. The idea is that if the parties can resolve the small issues, it
sets the groundwork for cooperation and compromise on the more difficult issues.
Settlement negotiation meetings, particularly if both lawyers genuinely cooperate to
reach a compromise acceptable to both sides, follow a predictable course. The meeting
usually starts off with the polite talk that breaks the ice and establishes an appropriate

106 Pretrial Skills and Trial Advocacy: Brief Notes and Materials, February 2009
atmosphere. After that comes the information exchanging stage, in which the parties try
to learn the other side’s concerns, needs, and interests. After that comes the position-
taking stage, in which the parties stage their own positions and make their offers, justify
their positions with supporting facts, and challenge the other side’s positions with
contradictory facts. It is at this stage that the bartering process takes over, with mutual
concessions triggering further compromises until an agreement is reached. Remember
that most concessions are made either at the beginning (usually the small concessions) or
near the end (usually the major concessions) of the negotiations, as each party realizes
that the opponent is becoming resistant to further concessions and the alternative is to try
the case. Remember that during the bartering process it is particularly important to watch
the other side and listen closely for verbal and non-verbal clues that reveal the opponent’s
true position and attitude. Just as in playing poker, perception is important.
If an agreement is reached, it must be put in writing. It is important to review the
details of the agreement before the meeting comes to an end so that there are no
misunderstandings. Always volunteer to draft the actual settlement. If the other side
insists, be sure to review the agreement carefully and change any language that does not
accurately and fairly reflect the agreement.
Finally, if the parties were unable to reach an agreement at the settlement meeting, this
does not mean the negotiations failed. It may have paved the way for future discussions.
It may have provided the groundwork for mediation or arbitration. The last offers by each
side may be the basis for a high–low agreement if the case goes to trial. And it may have
given you some insight into how the other side intends to present its case if it proceeds to
trial.

2. Negotiation (during litigaton) 6

…(T)he court can direct that a conference be held to facilitate a settlement. The court may
direct that parties, or representatives with settlement authority, attend the conference …
Settlement conference practices vary widely. Some judges actively promote settlement,
others are passive about settlement. ..
…
Finally, be patient. Experienced judges and litigators know that settlements often take
time. A settlement may not be reached during the first settlement conference. However,
the key concept is to get the parties talking about settlement. Once the ice is broken and
the parties are talking, most cases seek their own pace, and most eventually settle.

3. Client Authorization 7
Before you begin negotiations on behalf of a client, you must have authority to settle. The
law in almost all jurisdictions is that an agreement to represent a client does not confer

6 Ibid, pp. 369 – 371

Most of the reading under this section is omitted because courts in Ethiopia encourage
parties to settle their disputes without, however, actively getting involved in a
settlement conference.
7 Ibid, pp. 371 - 372

Unit 5- Pre-trial Negotiation and Settlement 107

authority to settle. Therefore, the client must expressly authorize his lawyer to settle. A
client cannot give a valid consent unless he is fully informed concerning the terms of the
proposed settlement, understands the terms and the reasons for them, and expressly
consents to them.
Involve the client in the decision-making, and discuss the pros and cons of settlement
options. This is best done by keeping the client well informed throughout the litigation
and up to date on the status of the case. Schedule a meeting with the client to discuss the
upcoming settlement possibilities, give him your best present assessment of the case, and
explain what you believe would be a reasonable settlement and the reasons for your
evaluation. Listen to the client’s questions, and candidly address his concerns. If the client
agrees to settle the case on those terms, obtain his written authorization for that
settlement. This is best done by sending a letter that recites the terms of the settlement
proposal to the client. He should sign and return a copy of the letter acknowledging and
approving its terms. When time is short, authorization by phone will suffice, but this
should be followed up with a letter reciting the details of the authorization …
__________

108 Pretrial Skills and Trial Advocacy: Brief Notes and Materials, February 2009
 Section 2- Reading on Conflict Resolution Skills
Skills for Conducting a Conflict Resolution Process 8
(The purpose of the following reading is to) introduce skills that are essential to the
conflict resolution process: separating interest from position and negotiation.

Learning Objectives
• Differentiate between interest and position
• Describe the basic principles of negotiation
• Identify the principles of a win-win strategy
• Apply the information covered today to analyze a conflict.

Interests and Positions

Interests:
The needs, concerns, and values that motivate each person.

Positions:
The responses or actions a person will take to meet his/her needs

8 http://preventiontraining.samhsa.gov/ctw06/mod5pm.htm (Accessed: December 29,

2008)

Unit 5- Pre-trial Negotiation and Settlement 109

 Separating Interest from Position
For each position listed, identify the interest of the speaker

• Position: I was very angry about the last meeting. I will not come again.
• Interest:

• Position: If you continue to be negative about everything, then I suggest you skip
these meetings.
• Interest:

• Position: This committee isn't accomplishing anything; I'm dropping out.

• Interest:

• Position: These people did not fulfill their promises to attend the meeting;
therefore we cannot trust them again.
• Interest:

• Position: If you put me down one more time, I'll have to ask that one of us be
taken off this assignment.
• Interest:

• Position: You do not have to do everything in this organization; otherwise you

will soon burn out.
• Interest:

• Position:
• Interest:

• Position:
• Interest:

Negotiation

Negotiation is a process in which conflicting parties share ideas, information, and options,
seeking a mutually acceptable outcome.

It is also an essential part of other conflict resolution processes:

• Mediation
• Problem solving.

Principles of Negotiation
Negotiation is a process in which two or more parties share ideas, information, and
options, seeking a mutually acceptable outcome. Negotiation in itself is a conflict

110 Pretrial Skills and Trial Advocacy: Brief Notes and Materials, February 2009
resolution process; however, it is also an essential part of other conflict resolution
processes, such as mediation (assisted negotiation) and problem solving.

Six principles form a theoretical framework for understanding negotiating practices:

• Distinguish "people" problems from the merits of the problem.
• Focus on interests, not on positions.
• Invent options for mutual gain.
• Search for criteria of evaluation. Look for and examine several criteria for each
option.
• Know the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA): The alternative to
be selected if an agreement is not reached between the negotiating parties.
• Analyze your bargaining power carefully.

These principles are further described below.

• Divide people problems from the merits and work on each separately and
simultaneously. People problems may include:
• Emotions
• Miscommunication
• Misperceptions.
• Focus on interests, not on positions:
• Don't bargain over positions.
• Arguing over positions is inefficient.
• Arguing over positions endangers an ongoing relationship.
• Positional bargaining is worse when in multiparty conflict.
• Neither the hard nor the easy (soft) positional bargaining is efficient.
• Invent options for mutual gain.
• Use shared understanding of the basic interests of both sides to generate
(brainstorm) options that will satisfy those interests to the maximum extent
possible.
• Search for criteria of evaluation. Look for and examine several criteria or
standards by which to judge the fairness or wisdom of each option.
• Know the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA). This is the
alternative to be selected if an agreement is not reached between the negotiating
parties. Analyze carefully the benefits and costs of the best alternative.
• Use the BATNA as your bottom line or price. It is an excellent standard for
judging whether a proposed option is an acceptable solution. Modifying or
improving the BATNA according to your interest during the negotiation increases

Unit 5- Pre-trial Negotiation and Settlement 111

 your bargaining power and may add to the other side's motivation to arrive at a
negotiated agreement.
• The purpose of negotiation is to produce an outcome that is preferable to any of
the outcomes possible without negotiation. The results that you can achieve or
obtain without negotiation is your BATNA.
• Your BATNA is the best protection from accepting an agreement that you should
reject. The better your BATNA, the more power you have in negotiation because
the relative power relation in negotiation is the degree to which an agreement is
attractive to one party in comparison to its BATNA.

How to develop possible BATNAs:

• Invent a list of actions you might conceivably take if agreement is not reached.
• Improve some of the promising ideas and convert them into practical options.
• Select, tentatively, the one option that seems best for you.

In negotiation context: Remember always to consider the other side's BATNA.

Analyze your bargaining power carefully. Bargaining power traditionally is defined as:
"the ability and power to hurt the other side or the power of superior resources."

But in this context bargaining power should be evaluated according to your:

• Skill and knowledge
• Good working relationship
• Good BATNA
• Good options
• Legitimacy
• Commitment

Other principles that can assist you in negotiation are:

• Focus on and prepare what you want, not what you fear.
• Structure your interaction (relationships, processes, and issues) to clarify what you
are doing at any one time.
• Jointly analyze, communicate, create, and decide.
• Assess your power relative to the power of others.
• Remain aware of the real external environment.

112 Pretrial Skills and Trial Advocacy: Brief Notes and Materials, February 2009
 Principles of a Win-Win Strategy
• Participants are problem solvers.
• The goal is a wise outcome reached efficiently and amicably.
• Separate the problem from people.
• Be soft on the people, hard on the problem.
• Proceed independent of trust.
• Focus on interests, not on positions.
• Explore interests; avoid having a bottom line.
• Invent options for mutual gain.
• Develop multiple options to chose from; decide later.
• Use objective criteria.
• Try to reach results based on standards independent of will.
• Reason and be open to reason; yield to principles, not to pressure.

Unit 5- Pre-trial Negotiation and Settlement 113

 Don't Bargain Over Positions
Problem Solution

Positional Bargaining: Which Game Should You Play? Change the Game-Negotiate
on the Merits
Soft What? Hard What? Principled What?

Participants are friends. Participants are adversaries. Participants are problem

The goal is agreement.
Make concessions to
cultivate the relationship.
solvers.
The goal is victory.
The goal is a wise outcome
Demand concessions as a reached efficiently and
condition of the relationship. amicably.

Be soft on the people and the Be hard on the problem and Separate the people from the
problem. the people. problem.

Trust others. Distrust others. Be soft on the people, hard on

Change your position easily. Dig in to your position.
Make offers.
Disclose your bottom line.
Accept one-sided losses to
reach agreement.
Search for the single answer:
the one they will accept.
Insist on agreement.
Try to avoid a contest of
will.
Make threats.
Mislead as to your bottom
line.
Demand one-sided gains as
the price of agreement.
Search for the single answer:
the one you will accept.
Insist on your position.
Try to win a contest of will.
the problem.
Proceed independent of trust.
Focus on Interests, not
positions.
Explore interests.
Avoid having a bottom line.
Invent options for mutual
gain.
Develop multiple options to
choose from; decide later.
Use objective criteria.

Try to reach a result based on

Yield to pressure. Apply pressure. standards independent of
will.

Reason and be open to

reason; yield to principle, not
pressure.

Based on: Getting to Yes, 1981. Fisher and Ury.

114 Pretrial Skills and Trial Advocacy: Brief Notes and Materials, February 2009
 A ROLE FOR DR. JONES-UGLI ORANGE CASE
You are Dr. J.W. Jones, a biological research scientist employed by a pharmaceutical firm.
You have recently developed a synthetic chemical useful for curing and preventing
Rudosen. Rudosen is a disease contracted by pregnant women. If not caught in the first 4
weeks of pregnancy, the disease causes serious brain, eye, and ear damage to the unborn
child. Recently, there has been an outbreak of Rudosen in your State and several thousand
women have contracted the disease. You have found, with volunteer victims, that your
recently developed synthetic serum cures Rudosen in its early stages. Unfortunately, the
serum is made from the juice of the Ugli orange, which is a very rare fruit. Only a small
quantity (approximately 4,000) of these oranges were produced last season. No additional
Ugli oranges will be available until next season, which will be too late to cure the present
Rudosen victims.

You have demonstrated that your synthetic serum is in no way harmful to pregnant
women. Consequently, there are no side effects. The Food and Drug Administration has
approved the production and distribution of the serum as a cure for Rudosen.

Unfortunately, the present outbreak was unexpected and your firm had not planned on
having the compound serum available for 6 months. Your firm holds the patent on the
synthetic serum and it is expected to be a highly profitable product when it is generally
available to the public

You have been recently informed, on good evidence, that R.H. Cardoza, a South
American fruit exporter, is in possession of 3,000 Ugli oranges in good condition. If you
would obtain the juice of the 3,000, you would be able to both cure the present victims
and provide sufficient inoculation for the remaining pregnant women in the State. No
other State currently has a Rudosen threat.

You have recently been informed that Dr. P.W. Roland is also urgently seeking Ugli
oranges and is also aware of Cardoza's possession of the 3,000 available. Dr. Roland is
employed by a competing pharmaceutical firm. S/He has been working on biological
warfare research for the past several years. There is a great deal of industrial espionage in
the pharmaceutical industry. Over the past several years, Dr. Roland's firm and your firm
have sued each other for infringement of patent rights and espionage law violations
several times.

You have been authorized by your firm to approach Cardoza to purchase the 3,000 Ugli
oranges. You have been told s/he will sell them to the highest bidder. Your firm has
authorized you to bid as high as $250,000 to obtain the juice of the 3,000 available oranges.

Before approaching Cardoza, you have decided to talk with Dr. Roland so that you will
not be prevented from purchasing the oranges.

Unit 5- Pre-trial Negotiation and Settlement 115

 A ROLE FOR DR. ROLAND-UGLI ORANGE CASE
You are Dr. P.W. Roland, a biologist for a pharmaceutical firm. The firm is under contract
with the government to do research on methods to combat enemy uses of biological
warfare.

Recently, several World War II experimental nerve gas bombs were moved from the U.S.
to a small island just off the U.S coast in the Pacific. In the process of transporting them,
two of the bombs developed a leak. The leak is presently controlled, but government
scientists believe that the gas will permeate the bomb chambers within 2 weeks. They
know of no method of preventing the gas from getting into the atmosphere and spreading
to the other islands, and very likely to the West coast as well.

You have developed a synthetic vapor that will neutralize the nerve gas if it is injected
into the bomb chamber before the gas leaks out. The vapor is made with a chemical taken
from the rind of the Ugli orange, a very rare fruit. Unfortunately, only 4,000 of these
oranges were produced this season.

You have been recently informed, on good evidence, that R.H.Cardoza, a South American
fruit exporter, is in possession of 3,000 Ugli oranges. The chemical from the rinds of this
number of oranges would be sufficient to neutralize the gas if the serum is developed and
injected efficiently. You have also been informed that the rinds of these oranges are in
good condition.

You have also been informed that Dr. J.W. Jones is also urgently seeking to purchase Ugli
oranges and s/he is also aware of Cardoza's possession of the 3,000 available. Dr. Jones
works for a firm with which your firm is highly competitive. There is a great deal of
industrial espionage in the pharmaceutical industry. Over the years, Dr. Jones' firm and
your firm have sued each other for infringement of patent rights and espionage law
violations several times. Litigation of two suits is still in process.

The Federal Government has asked your firm for assistance. You have been authorized by
your firm to approach Cardoza to purchase the 3,000 Ugli oranges. You have been told
s/he will sell them to the highest bidder. Your firm has authorized you to bid as high as
$250,000 to obtain the rinds of the 3,000 available oranges.

Before approaching Cardoza, you have decided to talk with Dr. Jones so that you will not
be prevented from purchasing the oranges.

MOSELEY AND THE BANK

Burb County established an Office of Human Rights (OHR) about 10 years ago to
investigate and redress claims of discrimination based on race, age, religion, gender, and
national origin. A long-time county resident, Mrs. Jewel Moseley, has called OHR to find
out how to file a discrimination complaint. She believes that she has been denied a loan to

116 Pretrial Skills and Trial Advocacy: Brief Notes and Materials, February 2009
buy a house for an unfounded reason; as far as she knows her credit is fine. In addition,
she is able to provide a sizable down payment.

Mrs. Moseley feels that Mr. Fred Hofman, the loan officer at Burb Savings and Loan
(BS&L), did not take her application seriously; he never seemed to have time to discuss it
with her fully. During the brief discussion they did have, he would not look her in the eye
and he acted as though there were other things he'd much rather be doing.

Mrs. Moseley wasn't sure he was treating her that way because she was a woman,
unmarried (a widow), Jewish, or older (72). She was particularly offended because she
had been banking at BS&L for many years, had contributed to the community in many
ways, and knew the community could benefit from her investment.

When Mrs. Moseley called OHR to find out how to file a complaint, she spoke with Mr.
Paul Kendrick, a case officer there. Mr. Kendrick discouraged her from coming in to file a
complaint, telling her she needed to have clear and convincing evidence that a particular
type of discrimination had occurred. Mrs. Moseley couldn't believe her legal protection
was so thin and became argumentative over the phone with Mr. Kendrick who eventually
hung up on her.

Mrs. Moseley called her attorney, Mrs. Michele Carmeli, Esq., to ask if it was possible to
file complaints against both OHR and BS&L. When Mrs. Carmeli agreed to look into it,
Mrs. Moseley was pleased, but as an afterthought asked if Mrs. Carmeli would have her
partner, Dave Mayer, handle this particular job, because the men at OHR and BS&L
would more likely listen to a male lawyer.

Although Mrs. Carmeli valued Mrs. Moseley's business very much, Mrs. Carmeli had
heard this line of thinking one too many times and coolly replied that if Mrs. Moseley
wished the services of the firm of Carmeli and Mayer, it was Carmeli who was available
to her.

CONFLICT ANALYSIS
Answer the following questions, based on the information you've just read.
1. Who are the main parties in this story?
2. What are the relationships between these people?
3. Are there any conflicts between them? If yes, what is the nature of each conflict
(data? relationship? interest? value? structure?)
4. What do you think Mrs. Moseley's conflict style might be?
5. Identify two communication styles described in this story.
6. List three communication barriers that the parties might be experiencing.
7. List a position statement for two of the parties.
8. According to the information you have here, list the underlying interest for each
position statement.

Unit 5- Pre-trial Negotiation and Settlement 117

 Review Exercises

Task 1
1. In the Shebelle-Addis Asqual-Gift Trading dispute (discussed in Units 2 and 4)
form a team of lawyers who represent Shebelle Transport Share Company
and Addis Asqual PLC and come up with terms of offer for negotiation.

2. Draft a legal opinion to the General Manager of your company about the
offer you intend to make during the negotiations.

3. Conduct negotiations

4. Draft a settlement if the dispute is resolved through negotiation.

Task 2
5. Write a legal opinion to the General Manager of Gift Trading PLC based on
the progress in the negotiation between Shebelle Transport and Addis
Asqual.

6. Conduct negotiations between Addis Asqual and Gift Trading.

__________

118 Pretrial Skills and Trial Advocacy: Brief Notes and Materials, February 2009