casemark/negotiation-support

Negotiation Support

Strategic negotiation roadmap synthesizing case materials into leverage analysis, risk assessment, and tactical recommendations.

Prerequisites

1. Matter context — parties, relationship history, negotiation type (settlement / contract / transactional / dispute resolution)
2. Documents — contracts, correspondence, prior agreements, discovery, financials
3. Client objectives — goals, constraints, authority limits, timeline
4. Negotiation history — prior offers, counteroffers, impasses, tentative agreements

Quick Start

1. Gather prerequisites above.
2. Produce each output section in order (Executive Summary through Action Items).
3. Cite source documents for every factual claim.
4. Mark unconfirmed legal authority with [VERIFY].
5. Label the document as privileged work product.

Output Structure

1. Executive Summary

| Element | Content | | --- | --- | | Negotiation type | Settlement / contract / transactional / dispute resolution | | Parties | Names, roles, relationship summary | | Core objectives | Client's 3–5 primary goals, ranked | | Critical issues | Top issues driving negotiation | | Recommended strategy | Integrative vs. distributive; approach in 2–3 sentences | | Key recommendation | Single most important strategic action |

2. Factual Background

Chronological narrative with cited sources covering:

• Relationship history and negotiation genesis
• Key dates, amounts, communications, commitments
• Prior negotiation attempts and outcomes
• Current procedural posture or deal status

3. Interests & Positions Analysis

| | Client | Opposing Party | | --- | --- | --- | | Stated positions | What they demand | What they demand | | Underlying interests | Economic, operational, reputational, relational | Same categories (estimated) | | Constraints | Authority, timeline, regulatory | Likely constraints | | Priorities | Rank order of issues | Estimated rank order | | Pressure points | Internal deadlines, stakeholder demands | Likely pressures |

4. Leverage Assessment

Rate each factor High / Medium / Low for both sides:

| Leverage Type | Client | Opposing Party | | --- | --- | --- | | Legal — claims strength, precedent, contractual position | | | | Economic — resources, market position, alternatives | | | | Informational — asymmetric knowledge, discovery exposure | | | | Timing — deadlines, limitations periods, market windows | | | | Relational — ongoing relationship value, reputation | | |

5. BATNA Analysis

| | Client | Opposing Party (est.) | | --- | --- | --- | | Best alternative | | | | Likely outcome if no deal | | | | Cost of no deal | | | | Timeline of alternative | | | | Risks of alternative | | | | Reservation point | Minimum acceptable | Estimated walk-away | | Target outcome | Aspirational realistic goal | |

6. Risk Matrix

| Risk | Type | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Legal / Business / Strategic | H/M/L | H/M/L | Specific action |

Flag categories: litigation exposure, regulatory concerns, contractual weaknesses, reputational damage, precedent-setting risk, relationship damage.

7. Issue-by-Issue Plan

For each significant issue:

| Issue | Opening | Target | Walk-Away | Value to Us | Value to Them | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | H/M/L | H/M/L |

Identify for each issue:

• Trade opportunities — low-cost concessions that are high-value to the other side
• Package proposals — bundled combinations that create value
• Sequencing — optimal order to address issues

8. Tactical Recommendations

Approach: integrative vs. distributive rationale, anchoring strategy, concession pattern (graduated / reciprocal / contingent), framing.

Anticipated arguments & responses:

| Opposing Argument | Response | Supporting Authority / Facts | | --- | --- | --- | | | | Cite documents, precedent, statutory provisions |

Process recommendations:

• Confidentiality protocol (NDA, FRE 408 / settlement privilege)
• Stakeholder involvement and escalation triggers
• Documentation protocol for offers and tentative agreements
• Expert input needs (financial, technical, industry)

9. Action Items

| Action | Owner | Deadline | Priority | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Pre-session preparations | | | | | Information to gather | | | | | Stakeholder decisions needed | | | | | Analysis to complete | | | |

Include negotiation timeline with milestones.

Guidelines

• Candid assessment — acknowledge weaknesses; do not overstate leverage.
• Cite sources — tie every factual claim to specific materials reviewed.
• Jurisdiction-aware — flag rules affecting negotiation (FRE 408, state settlement privilege, mandatory mediation).
• Confidentiality — mark as privileged work product; note attorney-client privilege applicability.
• Actionable specificity — tailor every recommendation to the matter facts; no generic advice.
• Authority verification — mark unconfirmed authority with [VERIFY].
• Living document — revise as new information emerges during negotiation.

Troubleshooting

• Missing client authority limits: Flag gap and request before drafting BATNA reservation points.
• Sparse opposing-party information: Mark estimated fields explicitly; recommend discovery or informal information-gathering steps.
• Multi-party negotiation: Duplicate the Interests & Leverage tables per party; note coalition dynamics.
• Cross-jurisdictional matters: Identify each jurisdiction's settlement privilege rules separately; flag conflicts.

---