Marty Latz New 2

Dealing with the Devil

Notes on Negotiation
By Marty Latz, Latz Negotiation Institute

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 1940 refused to negotiate with Hitler.  President George W. Bush in 2001 refused to negotiate with the Taliban.

Nelson Mandela, by contrast, reached out in 1985 to negotiate with South Africa’s white government, one that enforced a racist regime and had imprisoned him for over two decades. And President Barack Obama negotiated with Iran, which supports terrorist groups.

“Should you bargain with the devil?” is the question in the provocative book Bargaining with the Devil: When to Negotiate and When to Fight, by Harvard Program on Negotiation Chair Robert Mnookin.

Mnookin’s book transcends war and peace, offering lessons that can be applied to everyday situations. After all, who hasn’t felt betrayed by a business partner, friend, or family member, and felt like hitting back in lieu of talking?

Mnookin advises the following in determining whether to engage, with my own analysis here too.

1.     Systematically evaluate the costs and benefits
Our knee-jerk instinctive reaction toward negotiating with a devil may be “Absolutely not. He’s a devil.” This may overlook, however, your interests that may be satisfied with a less reactive, more strategic evaluation.

Mnookin suggests an initial framework to help make this decision, largely derived from the classic Getting To Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In by my law school professor Roger Fisher and William Ury.

He suggests the following, which I relate to my Five Golden Rules of Negotiation for the benefit of longtime readers.

  • Identify the parties involved and their fundamental interests (a crucial element of Golden Rule One: Information is Power-So Get It!);
  • Consider each side’s alternatives to negotiation (the major component of Golden Rule Two: Maximize Your Leverage. I call alternatives Plan Bs – Plan A being a negotiated agreement and Plan Bs the result if you don’t negotiate);
  • Evaluate the costs involved if you negotiate (costs constitute an independent standard underlying “fair” agreements – Golden Rule Three: Employ “Fair” Objective Criteria);
  • Brainstorm whether any options/agreements exist that would better satisfy the parties’ interests than their Plan Bs (evaluating options relative to your Plan B involve Golden Rule One (interests and options) relative to Golden Rule Two (Plan Bs)); and
  • Assess whether and how any deal can be implemented (can you trust the devil to fulfill its commitments and/or enforce them independently through courts or other mechanisms (whether a deal will stick and trust factors fit within Golden Rule One).

I would add one piece of advice to Mnookin’s. This strategic evaluation and preparation make sense for all potentially significant negotiations – not just those with “devils.”

2.    Get advice from third parties about your Plan Bs and these factors
I’m a big fan of strategic brainstorming and asking trusted advisors, friends and experts for advice before negotiating. Mnookin recommends this in determining whether to even engage. I agree.

Doing this helps us make more reasoned evaluations and avoid emotional traps that can cloud our judgment in stressful situations. Differing perspectives and ways of thinking can also lead to better analyses and conclusions.

There’s no downside to requesting advice here and a potentially big upside.

3.    When in doubt – presume to negotiate
If you’ve done your strategic analysis – your advisors disagree – and you’re still unsure what to do – Mnookin suggests you negotiate.

“Wait,” you respond. “Shouldn’t there be a presumption against negotiating?” “After all,” Mnookin writes, “this is the Devil we’re talking about!”

No. Why? Because “negative traps,” according to Mnookin, can distort your thinking and analysis. Traps include tribalism, demonization, dehumanization, moralism, zero-sum thinking, the psychological impulse to fight or flee, and the call to battle.

A guideline that makes you articulate the reasons NOT to negotiate has great value.

4.    Be especially pragmatic if you’re representing others
Finally, personal moral intuitions and morality should play a role. It may simply be morally repugnant for you to engage with a “devil.” And going against your morals has real costs. Despite the pragmatic factors urging you to engage, Mnookin notes, deciding not to negotiate “based on moral intuitions may be virtuous, courageous, and even wise.”

However, he recommends this only if you “alone bear the risk of carrying on the fight.”

Your personal morality should not override the above factors when your decision directly impacts others who may have different moral judgments and who rely on you to decide.

Business executives representing shareholders, union representatives on behalf of workers, and political leaders representing constituents should not decide based on their personal morals, writes Mnookin.

Latz’s Lesson:  Whether to negotiate with the devil presents a devilish dilemma. Solve this by strategic preparation, relying on outside advice, presuming to negotiate, and incorporating morality and agency issues into the equation


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

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Negotiation/Mediation Blog0 Comments

Indiana Law Allows you to Take Another Breath Test for Alcohol if the First Results in Insufficient Sample

By Richard Mann, Richard A. Mann, P.C., Indianapolis

On May 31, 2017, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the suspension of a woman’s driver’s license for allegedly refusing to take a breath test.  A state trooper had asked the driver to take a breath test for alcohol after she was stopped.  The trooper believed she had failed the field sobriety tests and she agreed to take a breath test.  After blowing in 3 times the machine continued to show “insufficient sample.”  Even though the driver had been cooperative, the trooper declared she was refusing to take a breath test.  At court the trial court found she refused and that decision was upheld by the Indiana Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court in Hurley v. State of Indiana in a unanimous decision reversed the lower courts and held that the trooper had to follow the rules requiring other options including offering for her to test again after the insufficient sample. The court stated, “The trooper was required to administer a second test on this record because Hurley did not clearly manifest an unwillingness to take it.”  The court went on to point out that this is not the case where a person puffs their cheeks and pretends to blow, which could result in a valid finding of refusal.

Under Indiana law any person driving a motor vehicle on the roads has impliedly consented to take a test for drugs or alcohol in their system if a police officer has probable cause to believe they are currently operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or other drugs pursuant to I.C. 9-30-6-9.  If you refuse to take the test your driver’s license may be suspended for a period of one (1) year in addition to any suspension you receive if convicted of the underlying operating under the influence charge.


Richard A. Mann has been practicing Family Law for more than 37 years in the Indianapolis area and throughout the State of Indiana. He is a Certified Family Law Specialist as certified by the Family Law Certification Committee, a Registered Family Law and Civil Law Mediator and Guardian ad Litem and Parenting Coordinator. Mr. Mann and his firm, Richard A. Mann, P.C. Attorneys at Law, are proud to have been one of the firms who represented Same-Sex couples who were successful in overturning Indiana’s ban on Same-Sex marriage. He continues to fight discrimination in the law.

While a large portion of Mr. Mann’s practice is in the Family Law area he also represents several corporations on contract, personnel and other matters. He also has a varied General Practice in wills, estates, juvenile matters, collections, probate throughout the state of Indiana. Mr. Mann has tried murder cases as well as a death penalty case.

Mr. Mann has been selected for inclusion in Super Lawyers SuperLawyers Edition for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 & 2016.

Follow Richard Mann on FacebookTwitter, or read more blogs by him here.

Posted in Law Blogs0 Comments

Elder Law Mediation – June 28

Elder Law Mediation – June 28

• Differences Between Elder Law and Other Types of Mediation

• Pre-Mediation Intake Screening and Who Should Be present at Mediation

• Ethics of Elder Law Mediation

• Understanding The Red Flags of Elder Abuse – Mental and Physical Effects of Aging That Mediators Need to Know

Samuel L. Bolinger, Chair
Samuel L. Bolinger & Associates, Fort Wayne

Charles M. Kidd
Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, Indianapolis

Dr. Mary Guerriero Austrom, PhD
Indiana University Department of Psychiatry, Indianapolis

3 CLE / 3 CME / 1 E – Wednesday, June 28; 9:00 A.M. – 12:15 P.M.

– ICLEF Conference Facility, Indianapolis

– From your home or office computer
Please Note: CME is Not Available via Individual Webcasts

Posted in Law Blogs0 Comments

A Matter of Style

Marty Latz will be presenting twice this year at the ICLEF Conference Facility!
June 7 – How to Say “NO” & Preserve the Relationship, 6 CLE / 6 CME / 1 E
December 1 – Gain the Edge! Negotiating to Get What you Want, 6 CLE / 6 CME / 1 E


Notes on Negotiation
By Marty Latz, Latz Negotiation Institute

‘Stan’ was a jerk. Totally self-absorbed with a massive ego, he was super aggressive and always breaking the rules. Reputation-wise, most people couldn’t stand him. Brilliant at software, though, he had developed a superb product.

The deal – based on an objective analysis of your financial and other interests – appeared to be excellent. But Stan would have a significant role going forward. So how you interacted and negotiated would be extremely significant.

Should you buy control of Stan’s company?

The biggest red flag, of course, is Stan’s personality style.  What does that mean?

Here are five qualities to evaluate in assessing your counterpart’s negotiation style. Developed by Marquette Law School Prof. Andrea Kupfer Schneider in “Teaching a New Negotiation Skills Paradigm” (Washington Univ. Journal of Law and Policy, 2012), I have also added my own thoughts here.

Keep in mind the following, too:

  • Each quality exists on a spectrum. And we all exhibit elements of each, some more than others.
  • These reflect tendencies, not immutable characteristics. Each can be improved upon with self-awareness, training and practice.
  • These are styles – not strategies. They relate less to what you do and more with how you do it. Of course, these overlap.
  • Individuals modify how they implement these styles between negotiations and even within negotiations.

1.    Assertiveness
Assertiveness relates to an individual’s aggressiveness in their negotiation interactions. How forcefully and competitively do they engage? Conversely, how much do they shy away from the conflict that inevitably exists sometimes?

Effective negotiators exhibit strong assertiveness traits – but know when, where and how to modify and modulate them.  Too much assertiveness can result in an overly adversarial environment that can be counterproductive. Too little assertiveness can leave unrealized value on the table.
I once worked with a super assertive lawyer. An excellent litigator, his negotiation style and skills were underdeveloped – everything was a fight. Finding any common ground was extremely difficult.

2.    Empathy
Schneider writes “being empathetic in a negotiation [requires] a complex mix of skills – a willingness to hear the other side, open-mindedness or curiosity, good questioning and excellent listening, among others.” Emotionally intelligent individuals score high on empathy.
Developing this skill means becoming a more active and deep listener and questioner. Highly empathetic negotiators also fundamentally believe their counterparts can help them get what they want. Empathy is especially crucial in negotiations involving future relationships between the parties.

3.    Flexibility
Flexibility sounds good. But too much flexibility can be a liability, reflecting a willingness to change too often without justification.  Too little flexibility – stubbornness – can also be problematic.
Schneider notes that “[talented] negotiators work to find a variety of ways to get the job done both in their strategic choices as well as more flexible outcomes. Being flexible in negotiation allows a stylistic move from simple compromising to more sophisticated integrative solutions. It also helps to prevent stalemate.”

Being open to creative options you may not initially consider is another element of flexibility. Brainstorming, sometimes with your counterpart, often brings out this quality in negotiators.

4.    Social Intuition
Schneider’s research finds that these social skills translate to negotiation effectiveness: personable, rational, perceptive, self-controlled, sociable, helpful, and smooth. Other research cited by Schneider suggests that how we interact and present to others and the importance of being nice are traits associated with successful individuals.

Appropriate tone and positive moods also translate to making negotiators more creative and effective. The opposite, too. Don’t underestimate the power of sociability and rapport and relationship-building in negotiations.

5.    Ethicality
Your reputation for trustworthiness and a willingness to follow ethical principles correlate to your negotiation effectiveness, according to Schneider and others.

Of course, trustworthiness in negotiations does not mean you simply lay all your cards on the table. Some misdirection is expected and warranted in many negotiations.

If my client is desperate to sell his business, I would not share this with a buyer.

Remember, though, your reputation derives not from your belief in your trustworthiness and ethics – but how your counterpart describes you after the negotiation.

So what about Stan? Here’s my style rating of him: high assertiveness, super low empathy, medium flexibility, low social intuition, problematic ethicality. Too many red flags. Walk away.

Latz’s Lesson:  Research and evaluate your counterparts’ personality style. A good or bad style fit can make or break your deal.


Marty Latz will be presenting twice this year at the ICLEF Conference Facility!
June 7 – How to Say “NO” & Preserve the Relationship, 6 CLE / 6 CME / 1 E
December 1 – Gain the Edge! Negotiating to Get What you Want, 6 CLE / 6 CME / 1 E


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

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Blog, Negotiation/Mediation Blog0 Comments