The Amateur Life Coach Returns with “Unsubscribing to Spam Email”

The Amateur Life Coach Returns with “Unsubscribing to Spam Email”

James J. Bell, ICLEF's Amateur Life Coach

The Amateur Life Coach is back to dispense his unique thoughts, advice and wisdom to his real and imagined viewers…

This week Dutton Legal Group LLC attorney Adam Christensen poses the question… “How do I get rid of those spam emails?”

Now, you can also “like” the Amateur Life Coach at Facebook!  Visit his facebook account today and catch up on his day-to-day activities.

Questions for the Amateur Life Coach?  Email them to scottking@iclef.org or @JamesJBell on Twitter.

Written and performed by James J. Bell. Produced by the Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum. This video is for informational purposes only and should not be used as a substitute for professional advice.

____________________________________________________________________

James focuses his practice in the areas of criminal defense; attorney discipline defense and health care law. As a Marion County Public Defender, he represented clients in numerous jury and bench trials. James also represents clients in juvenile delinquency, appeals and post-conviction proceedings. James is a frequent ICLEF speaker on ethics, trial practice and criminal procedure. James just completed his first semester as an adjunct professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law where he teaches a course on professional responsibility. To date, no student has yet stood on their desk and shouted “Oh captain, my captain!” Follow James on Twitter @jamesjbell

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Amateur Life Coach0 Comments

Relationships Should be Factored in to Negotiations

Notes on Negotiations
By Marty Latz, Latz Negotiation Institute

I am in the midst of a contentious multi-party negotiation and have found myself occasionally reminding my colleagues of the value of the relationship with the other parties. While this value might appear obvious, we sometimes lose sight of the long-term as we focus on our immediate deal.

Here is a way to consider the power of this relationship and some tips for how to preserve and strengthen it.

1. Consider all types of relationships
The strong relationship value is clear in negotiations involving formal, long-term relationships between the parties, like a salary negotiation or partnership deal. But what about one-shot, zero-sum negotiations (where one dollar more for one side is necessarily one dollar less for the other)? Is there a value to that relationship?

It depends. Sometimes it can be significant, especially in small communities where everyone knows everyone. Plus, in our increasingly interconnected world with online communities and social networks and media, our reputations travel at light speed even to those with whom we have no formal connections.

You never know when that person might have an impact – directly or through unknown others – on you and/or your career.

Keep in mind also two crucial elements of all relationships. One, relationship power is a matter of degree. It’s not all or nothing. It’s a spectrum. Every relationship has some value. The question is how much.

And two, there are many types of relationships, including family, personal, social, professional/business, situational, etc. Different relationships have different values to different people and require different approaches.

2. Tips to strengthen relationships
So how should you negotiate with those with whom you have a high relationship value versus low, understanding these strategies also exist on a spectrum?

– Share more information about your interests and needs, not less. Sometimes we tend to hold our cards close to our vests. Don’t.

– Aggressively probe your counterpart’s true needs and interests. Research has shown we often shy away from this in relationship situations as we feel it might be perceived negatively. Don’t. This is how you find the win-win in your deals.

– Creatively brainstorm options to satisfy your mutual interests with your counterparts. Brainstorming can enhance the relationship, as two or more heads here can be more powerful than one.

– Explicitly talk about the value of the relationship from your perspective. Then listen carefully to ensure it’s reciprocal.

– Downplay the leverage component in your negotiation, even if it’s strong. Leverage, which involves your walk away/Plan B/not doing the deal with your counterpart – and a future relationship with your counterpart – often don’t mix well.

– Rely on independent standards like market value, precedent and experts, especially when making offers or concessions. Tying your moves to these standards will help you keep a fair and reasonable hat on your head, and help your counterpart view you that way, too. One final point. Sometimes people believe that just giving in or avoiding the negotiation completely will preserve and strengthen their relationships. After all, it eliminates the conflict. Sometimes this is true.

But not always. Simply conceding on a really important interest may create resentment and can fester, causing significant harm to long-term relationships.

Latz’s Lesson: Relationships come in many forms and have different values in different negotiations. Ignoring this in how you negotiate will lead to less successful negotiations – and to fewer relationships.

______________________________________________________________________

Marty Latz is the founder of Latz Negotiation Institute, a national negotiation training and consulting company, and ExpertNegotiator, a Web-based software company that helps managers and negotiators more effectively negotiate and implement best practices based on the experts’ proven research.  He is also the author of Gain the Edge! Negotiating to Get What You Want (St. Martin’s Press 2004). He can be reached at 480-951-3222 or Latz@ExpertNegotiator.com

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Negotiation/Mediation Blog0 Comments

Trial Court within Discretion Modifying Decree to Provide Mother the Dependency Exemption for Child EVERY Year

Case: James Bogner v. Teresa Bogner 

by Mike Kohlhaas, Bingham Greenebaum Doll

HELD: Trial court did not commit error when it entered an upward deviation in child support, from the Indiana Child Support Guidelines, after stating findings on the record in support of its conclusion that the Guidelines level of support would create a hardship for Mother’s ability to care for Child.

HELD: Trial court acted within its discretion when it modified the Decree to provide that Mother would receive the dependency exemption for Child every year, rather than in alternating years.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
[Note:  Much of this case pertained to the fact that, by the implied consent of the parties, the case was presented to the trial court in summary fashion, rather than through a full evidentiary hearing. The largest takeaway of that discussion is that efforts to appeal a trial court’s order are made much more complicated and difficult by consenting to a hearing in summary fashion. The consequences of the informality of summary proceedings cannot be challenged on appeal if they were not objected to at the time of the hearing.]

The marriage of Mother and Father was dissolved in 2007. Father was then ordered to pay child support  of $162 per week for Child. That obligation was subsequently reduced to $135 per week.

In 2013, Father again sought modification. The parties seemed to agree on the applicable child support worksheet which, once Father’s increased parenting time credit was factored in, would result in a presumed child support obligation under the Guidelines of $59 per week. Mother argued for an upward deviation, stating that $59 per week left her with insufficient resources to cover her costs as the primary custodial parent.

After a hearing conducted in summary fashion, the trial court agreed with Mother, and set child support at $105 per week. This was the amount of child support that would be calculated under the Guidelines if Father were given a parenting time credit for only half of his actual overnights. The trial court also permitted Mother to claim Child on her taxes every year, whereas it had been alternated previously. Father appealed.

The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the upward deviation based upon the specific findings made by the trial court as to the hardship that Mother would incur if she received only $59 per week of child support as the primary custody parent. In addition, the Court cited to Guidelines in support of the proposition that a trial court is not required to award a parenting time credit based upon overnights. As is noted in the commentary of the Guidelines, “[a]n overnight will not always translate into a twenty-four hour block of time with all of the attendant costs and responsibilities….”

With respect to the tax dependency exemption, Mother introduced an exhibit showing the benefit she would receive through the exemption, and “Father offered no exhibits of his own to rebut the exhibits offered by Mother.”  The trial court did not err by granting the annual dependency exemption for Child to Mother.

The trial court’s modification order was affirmed.

To view the text of this opinion in its entirety, click here: James Bogner v. Teresa Bogner

_________________________________________________________________________________

James A. Reed and Michael R. Kohlhaas of Bingham Greenebaum Doll represent clients in a wide spectrum of relationship transition and wealth planning matters, including premarital agreements, estate planning, cohabitation, separation, divorce (especially involving high net worth individuals and/or complex asset issues), custody, parenting arrangements, adoption, and domestic partnerships. Bingham Greenebaum Doll, a multidisciplinary law firm serving regional, national, and international clients, is the fourth-largest law firm in Indiana. The firm’s main practices include corporate, property, litigation, labor, government law, and personal services law. Visit the firm’s website at www.bgdlegal.com.

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Family Law Case Review0 Comments

ALC Donut Chart-2

Amateur Life Coach: Should I eat this doughnut?

James J. Bell, ICLEF's Amateur Life Coach

 

 

 

 

 

Dear ALC:

Should I eat this donut?

Sincerely,
Befuddled in Bedford

______________________________

Dear Befuddled:

There are topics that are easy for the Lifecoach to explain (like electromagnetic field theory, thermodynamics and One Direction.) But you’ve raised an issue requiring more than mere words. The flow chart below contains the answers to all the issues, sub-issues, controversies and sub-plots that your problem present.

ALC Donut Chart-2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m the Amateur Lifecoach and I hope this helps.

______________________________________________________________________

James focuses his practice in the areas of criminal defense; attorneys discipline defense and health care law. As a Marion County Public Defender, he represented clients in numerous jury and bench trials. James also represents clients in juvenile delinquency, appeals and post-conviction proceedings. James is a frequent ICLEF speaker on ethics, trial practice and criminal procedure. As of January 2013, he began serving as an adjunct professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law where he teaches a course on professional responsibility. To date, no student has yet stood on their desk and shouted “Oh captain, my captain!”

Follow James on Twitter @jamesjbell or the Amateur Lifecoach at

Questions for the amateur life coach? Email them to scottking@iclef.org

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Amateur Life Coach1 Comment

Having trouble logging in?Visit our Support section.

Subscribe

Contact Us

ICLEF
230 East Ohio Street
Suite #300
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Phone: 317-637-9102
Fax: 317-633-8780
E-mail: iclef@iclef.org