Settling a lawsuit: key procedures and considerations

Settling a Lawsuit

Discuss the ethical values you would use in this negotiation

The important fact is that the negotiation involves the perception of the issues and the consensus of both the negotiation. Decision making involves anticipation of the behavior of ones own clients and also of the opposite parties. In such cases the problems occur when the best interests of the clients and the needs are juxtaposed on the demands of the other side and also the fairness consideration. The negotiation methods have a heritage beginning from the collaborative practice which came in vogue during the 1990s wherein the parties concerned and their attorneys negotiate or resolve the issues avoiding litigation. Both sets of clients and lawyers agree to an acceptable settlement without a court hearing and this makes the role of the lawyer different in the sense that the lawyer may give "advice, research, drafting assistance, negotiation assistance, a review of legal papers, or a court appearance." (Cochran, 2009) This role essentially enlarges the work of the attorney and following ethics becomes crucial in the success of the negotiation and long-term progress.

Therefore the ethical values have to be discussed first, as a preliminary. It would be novel idea if attorneys first discussed their perceptions of ethics and drew perimeters about how far they would go in relation to their affairs and what they would not transgress before the process begins, and these values agreed upon must be made the basis of negotiation.

2 Discuss how you would determine whether the negotiation substantive fairness

Fairness can be different things to different set of peoples. The view of what constitutes fairness is more of a personal perception. The lawyer's role is to see that his client gets the deal that is satisfactory but need not necessarily be fair in common perception. The insistence is that the procedures that led to the end result were all followed fairly and there was no unfair means adopted in the hearings and negotiations. Thinkers are of the opinion that substantive fairness in contracts is simply pseudo-problems. Thus to the persons who think of fairness and not conducting and unconscionable bargain or having the negotiation done with proper procedures would be sustentative fairness. That the method of negotiation came with an improper strategy can be of no concern. If the procedures are followed to the letter, then there is no need to go into the contract's substantive fairness. In cases where a settlement is made out of court, the fairness must be assumed if the processes seem flawless and then the courts ought not to police the bargains to see that it is fair all round. (Buckley, 1990) Therefore the question of fairness must be seen from the light of the overall proceeding than the result and if the result is agreeable to parties the fairness of the verdict becomes a mere academic question.