Over 25 years ago, I attended a course on negotiating settlements and mediation in which advocates and neutrals shared their perspectives on how to reach a resolution in high-stakes disputes. The presenters shared a wealth of advice, but the advice from two particular speakers still stands out. The first came from the Judge Sandra Newman, former Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice, who at the time was a preeminent domestic relations lawyer. Newman shared that when she was trying to settle a marital dispute fraught with emotion, she would invite everyone to her office for bagels and lox. She found that by providing a nurturing setting, the parties were better able to put aside their anger and frustration and make peace while “breaking bread.” The second speaker I remember is David L. Cohen, U.S. Ambassador to Canada, who at the time was chief of staff to then-Philadelphia Mayor Edward G. Rendell. Cohen shared that when he was trying to persuade an adverse party to accede to the city’s position or to convince adverse stakeholders to reach an accord in a politically charged situation, he strived to grasp the other side’s position and reach a deal that everyone could live with long term. He remarked that if he banged heads and forced people to agree under duress, the deal would not likely hold up over time.
What Newman and Cohen had in common was an understanding that disputing parties need to feel respected and not be bulldozed into accepting terms they later regret. These experts appreciated that for a resolution to endure, the parties had to agree voluntarily, which was more likely in a comfortable setting when the participants walked away feeling they had gotten value in exchange for whatever they forfeited. Several other panelists in that program emphasized the parties need to be prepared substantively on what to expect from the process. Many noted that it was essential to let the parties speak for themselves, not merely through counsel, so that they feel they had been heard.
