Tag Archive | "CME"

The Essentials of Family Law – Aug. 31

The Essentials of Family Law – Aug. 31

• Best practices for an initial consultation with a client

• Best practices on how to counsel your client in preparation for a provisional hearing & topics to address during the provisional hearing

• Addressing ethical questions related to conflicts & best practices to avoid them

• Best practices & words of wisdom from the bench

• Legislative & Case Law Update

• Best practices for how to counsel your client in preparation for & during mediation

Teresa A. Griffin, Chair
Faegre Baker Daniels, Indianapolis

Hon. Marie L. Kern
Marion County Chief Magistrate, Indianapolis

Hon. David K. Najjar
Hamilton County Magistrate, Noblesville

Michael P. Commons
Indiana Office of Court Services, Indianapolis

Jonathan R. Deenik
Deenik Law LLC, Greenwood

Darryn L. Duchon
Attorney at Law, Indianapolis

Erin M. Durnell
Broyles Kight & Ricafort PC, Indianapolis

Jesse G. Pace
Broyles Kight & Ricafort PC, Indianapolis

Dustin L. Plummer
Mallor Grodner LLP, Bloomington

Stacy L. Prall
Faegre Baker Daniels, Indianapolis

6 CLE / 1 E / 1 CME – Thursday, August 31; 9:00 A.M. – 4:30 P.M.

– ICLEF Conference Facility, Indianapolis

– May Oberfell Lorber, Mishawaka

– From your home or office computer

– Available after Live Seminar date

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Highlighted Seminars0 Comments

Effective Threats

Marty Latz will be presenting again this year at the ICLEF Conference Facility!
December 1 – Gain the Edge! Negotiating to Get What you Want, 6 CLE / 6 CME / 1 E


Notes on Negotiation: Effective Threats
By Marty Latz, Latz Negotiation Institute

“I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse,” Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) says in The Godfather. Perhaps the greatest movie threat ever, Corleone had dominant negotiation leverage – his counterpart faced certain death if he refused Corleone’s “offer.”

By contrast, the media recently reported that President Donald Trump instructed Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to speak with Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on health care and “remind” her of the Interior Department’s control of many issues affecting Alaska.

Trump’s threat didn’t change her vote against the Republican plan.

Of course, I’m not suggesting Trump behave like the Godfather. But there are effective and ineffective threats.

If and when and how should you use threats?

First, understand the fundamental nature of threats. Northwestern Professor Adam Galinsky and Brigham Young Professor Katie Liljenquist define a threat as “a proposition that issues demands and warns of the costs of noncompliance” in “Putting on the Pressure: How to Make Threats in Negotiations” in Harvard’s Negotiation newsletter.

Threats constitute an often-unspoken element in almost all negotiations. They’re actually a super aggressive effort to exercise leverage. Leverage, as my regular readers know, relates in part to the strength of your alternative to a deal with your counterpart (your Plan B if your deal is Plan A) relative to their alternative to a deal with you (their Plan B).

Your ability to negatively impact their perception of their Plan B through a threat – the costs of noncompliance with your offer – strengthens your leverage. The worse you can make their Plan B seem with a threat, the more likely they will accept your Plan A by comparison.

Threats are also not inherently evil. As Galinsky and Liljenquist note, “[r]esearchers have found that people actually evaluate their counterparts more favorably when they combine promises with threats rather than extend promises alone. Whereas promises encourage exploitation, the threat of punishment motivates cooperation.”

Understanding this, follow these four research-based guidelines in deciding how to use threats.

1.    Strategically Plan Your Threats

“Put your bike away now, or no electronics for a week,” you might threaten after you find your 10-year-old’s bike in the driveway for the umpteenth time.

Every parent has lost their temper at some point. Does it help? Usually not.

Threats based on anger, volatile emotion, and momentary pressures are almost always counterproductive. Galinsky and Liljenquist note that “multiple studies have linked anger to reduced information processing, risky behaviors, and clouded judgment.”

Strategically planning your threats in advance, not reacting instinctively, addresses these concerns. Such planning also reduces the possibility of counterthreats and retaliation, which could escalate and spiral out of control.

The goal of a threat is to satisfy your interests. Use it to motivate cooperation, not to punish.

2.    Threaten Only in Limited Circumstances

Northwestern Professor Jeanne Brett and her colleagues, according to Galinsky and Liljenquist, have identified three circumstances in which threats can be necessary and effective:

  • Getting your counterparts to the table when facing a seemingly intractable deadlock (like threatening aggression or sanctions to get a recalcitrant country to engage in peace talks);
  • Breaking an impasse by signaling strength and fortitude (bullies sometimes only respond if you demand respect by flexing your muscles); and
  • As a mechanism to ensure compliance and implementation of an agreement.

The reason to only threaten in limited circumstances? Even well-crafted threats may carry significant negative consequences, as noted by Galinsky and Liljenquist, including:

  • Provoking resistance and anger, thus decreasing your counterparts’ likelihood of granting your wishes;
  • Undermining an agreement’s legitimacy if your counterpart believes it resulted from coercion; and
  • Inciting a desire for vengeance (“[p]sychologists,” Galinsky and Liljenquist write, “have found that revenge has biological foundations, persisting until it is satisfied, like hunger. The more severe a threat’s consequences, the more extreme the retaliation is likely to be.”)

Don’t make threats a regular part of your repertoire. Selectively use them.

3.    Credible Threats Work – Empty Threats are Counterproductive

Don’t start a war you’re not prepared to fight and finish. Former President Barack Obama famously threatened Syria with severe consequences if it crossed a “red line” by using chemical weapons.

What did he do after the world saw unmistakable evidence it had crossed his red line? Said he didn’t have authority from Congress to even engage militarily and negotiated a deal to stop it from happening again.

Did this prevent Syria from doing it again? No. Did Obama and the United States lose significant credibility relating to its future promises and threats with Syria and the rest of the world? Yes.

Reputations matter, especially relating to the credibility of threats.

4.    Frame Your Threats to Satisfy Your Counterparts’ Interests

Effective threats should also be framed so they can be realistically satisfied and not engender ill will. They should thus:

  • be specific and detailed;
  • address your counterpart’s interests;
  • be delivered respectfully in a measured, serious tone;
  • include meaningful consequences;
  • link to a timeline; and
  • possibly include an escape route if circumstances change.

Also use them sparingly in situations involving a future relationship between the parties. Threats can backfire long-term.

Then-President Ronald Reagan in 1981 threatened 12,000 striking air traffic controllers with the loss of their jobs if they did not report back to work “within 48 hours” of his statement. 11,359 did not comply. He fired them.

According to Galinsky and Liljenquist, “[m]any observers view Reagan’s controversial threat and follow-through as a pivotal moment in his presidency and the foundation for future political victories.”

Latz’s Lesson:  I’ve made you an offer here you can easily refuse. Don’t. As Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry would say – “make my day.”


Marty Latz will be presenting again this year at the ICLEF Conference Facility!
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 Latz@ExpertNegotiator.com

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Blog, Negotiation/Mediation Blog0 Comments

CME for Family Mediators – Aug. 18

CME for Family Mediators – Aug. 18

• Mediating Cases Involving Domestic Violence and Reporting Issues

• Owning the Room: Establishing and Maintaining Control in Mediation

• Pros and Cons of Marathon Sessions v. Multiple Sessions

• Financial Considerations

• Dealing with Difficult Clients and Attorneys

• Forms and Best Practices – Balance Sheets, Forms, Sample Language

• Mediating the Low Income Case

• Party Crashers: Dealing with Non Parties Who Attend

• Ethics: When Lawyers Give Bad Advice


Lana Pendoski – Chair
Newton Becker Boukamp Pendoski P.C., Indianapolis

Christopher J. Barrows
Barrows Legal Group LLC

Kerry Hyatt Bennett
Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Indianapolis

Kathryn Hillebrands Burroughs
Cross Pennamped Woolsey & Glazier, Carmel

Elisabeth M. Edwards
Wanzer Edwards, Indianapolis

Lisa Fears
Law Resource Center, Franklin

Dr. Bart Ferraro
Meridian Psychological Associates P.C., Indianapolis

Jill E. Goldenberg
Schuman Cohen Garelick & Glazier, Indianapolis

Mark Hildebrand
Holistic Financial Partners LLC, Indianapolis

Greg Noland
Emswiller, Williams, Noland & Clarke, P.C.

James A. Reed
Bingham Greenebaum Doll, Indianapolis

Robert N. Reimondo
Capper Tulley & Reimondo, Crawfordsville

Melanie Reichert
Broyles Kight & Ricafort P.C., Indianapolis


6 CLE / 6 CME – Friday, August 18; 9:00 A.M. – 4:30 P.M.

– ICLEF Conference Facility, Indianapolis

– Available after the Live Seminar date


ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in News0 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