De Minimis
  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Podcast
  • Your Learned Friend
  • Anonymous Feedback
  • Art
  • Get published!
  • Constitution
  • Archive
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2017 >
      • Semester 2 (Volume 12) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (election issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
    • 2016 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 9) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 10) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (Election Issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
        • Issue 13 (test)
    • 2015 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 7) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
      • Semester 2 (Volume 8) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
    • 2014 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 5) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
      • Semester 2 (Volume 6) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 12
    • 2013 >
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • 2012 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 1) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 2) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12

Negotiation Competition: Inherently unfair?

24/4/2018

 
Issue 8, Semester 1

By Yujie Du

Editor's note:
​The print edition didn't mention which negotiation competition the author participated in.

For clarity,
 this article refers to the competition [NAME REDACTED] which was run by the Melbourne China Law Society, not the LSS. This competition was sponsored by [NAME REDACTED].
​
The
 cached webpage for the competition can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/y8pfw6qj

I competed in the MCLS [NAME REDACTED] competition and lost, and I’m pissed. I got angry not because I lost, but because I felt I lost with no reasonable justifications and different judges gave inconsistent feedback. This isn’t because of our opponents or judges; the competition seems to  be unfair. It is not framed as strictly as other competitions. In mooting, the rules are clear: you have a set pattern of written and oral submissions, after which you basically know whether you win or lose at the moot. For negotiation? No such thing. the negotiation judges have too much discretion. Of course they want to be objective, but under such arrangements , they subconsciously bring with them their personal judgments to the competition.
Picture
Censored [NAME REDACTED] competition poster (Uncensored poster is available here: https://tinyurl.com/y8pfw6qj )
1. A Preferred Negotiation Style?
‘You lost because you are too strong.’ Then you try to be nice next time.
‘You lost because you did not fight for your client.’  
One judge really likes how one party was humble and sincere. Another judge can be just the opposite.

What should you do? Maybe do some personal research to find out your judge’s personal preference? To be honest, if you need to know a judge’s preferences before a competition, the competition is just not fair!


2. Uneven Negotiation Power Based on Facts?
In one competition, we were the ‘bad person’ and what the client wanted was to get rid of the liabilities as much as possible. The feedback was: ‘You should apologise first since you are the faulty person and be nice to the other party’

You lose when you are not being nice (because you are faulty); you also lose when you’re being too nice (because you did not get what the client wanted).
So? Was I just destined to lose based on the facts?

3. Awkward ‘Fight to Talk’ Situation
In a negotiation, sometimes you have to cut-off the other side when they are elaborating some points you think are off the topic. I got the feedback that I lost because I interrupted the other party while they were talking and that was rude. But I knew if I hadn’t interrupted, I would have talked too little  and have still lost the competition.


To respond the problems I met, here are some recommendations for future negotiation competitions:

1. Clear instructions for the competition.
Including the objectives of the competition, the encouraged behavior and specific rules.

2. Even bargaining power granted for both sides.
The facts given to both parties shall be designed at best to give equal bargaining power to each side to free the judge from the distraction of considering the standing position of each party. Therefore the judges can focus on  the performance of the participants.

3. Structured/framed negotiation process.
  • a. Offer period. Give each side 3 minutes to briefly deliver their offer to the other side.
  • b. Negotiation period. Give 10 minutes of presentation for each side, replacing the normal ‘fight to talk situation’ during competition. When one side has used their time up, they have to ‘shut up’.
  • c. Closing deal. Each team come up with the final deal and see if any deal can be made in the last 3 minutes.

4. Employ a panel of judges (odd number) instead of a single judge.
  • No preference for negotiation style should exist during the competition.

5. If there is a chance, the competition should be public. Publicity will avoid perceptions of discrimination.

The whole negotiation competition can be better designed to ensure a procedural fairness and people will not feel frustrated and angry after a fair game.
NPJ
24/4/2018 12:00:52 pm

There are lots of things to say about this, but in sum: you are not alone.

Foremost, I think it's important to say that women have been proven to be at a disadvantage in law school competition and are shown to be penalised for things, such as aggression, that their male counterparts are praised for.

Additionally, although it sucks, variability of judges is very much a real world experience. As a student, I had one moot where the opposing counsel did not address our arguments, but the judge admonished us for our written submission. Another time, opposing counsel began proceedings by conceeding 2 of our 3 arguments. We then we're told this was "a good strategy".

In practice, as a barristers assistant I've found judges to be highly variable. You're right, the only way to know how to win is know how the judge works on a personal level. It's experience. Outside of litigation, I find external parties too, to be variable, but the skill of the lawyer is to work with that variability to best serve the client.

Ultimately, I know this is no consolation, it's just my sage advice. Don't worry too much. You may have unfairly lost what I'm told is a pathway to a paralegal job, but in doing so you can now see the Kafkaesque, frustrating reality that is legal practice.

Yujie Du
24/4/2018 02:36:18 pm

Thank you so much for your sincere reply.
You are totally right that variability of judges is real. But there's always hope that there's something we can do to improve in order to get closer to fairness. So I wrote the article, trying to provide constructive advices for this competition.

If justice and fairness is the ultimate goal, we cannot stop trying.


Comments are closed.
    Picture

    Archives

    December 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014

  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Podcast
  • Your Learned Friend
  • Anonymous Feedback
  • Art
  • Get published!
  • Constitution
  • Archive
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2017 >
      • Semester 2 (Volume 12) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (election issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
    • 2016 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 9) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 10) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (Election Issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
        • Issue 13 (test)
    • 2015 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 7) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
      • Semester 2 (Volume 8) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
    • 2014 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 5) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
      • Semester 2 (Volume 6) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 12
    • 2013 >
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • 2012 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 1) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 2) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12