In a recent New York Times article about the just-starting labor negotiation between the NBA owners and players, David Falk, the NBA's first superagent, said "This is not the time to fight. This is a time to sit down as partners and create a system that is realistic in today's economic climate."

Falk's quote raises an important negotiation question - when should you use Competitive Negotiation Strategies vs. Problem-Solving Strategies?

Generally, Competitive Strategies work best when no future relationship is at stake, when the negotiation involves only one or a few issues, when more for your side necessarily means less for your counterpart (zero-sum) and when your counterpart uses Competitive Strategies against you.

Competitive Strategies include not sharing strategic information, aggressively developing and emphasizing your alternatives, employing your own standards, implementing an aggressive offer-concession strategy and actively controlling the agenda.

Problem-Solving Strategies work best when you have or will have a long-term personal or professional relationship with your counterpart, when the negotiation is complex (it involves many issues), when creative options are present and when your counterpart uses Problem-Solving Strategies with you.

Problem-Solving Strategies include sharing strategic information more liberally, deemphasizing your alternatives and focusing instead on independent standards, implementing a more accommodating offer-concession strategy and openly discussing the agenda.

Here, the owners and players obviously are in a long-term professional relationship, there are numerous issues on the table and creative options, such as yet untapped foreign revenue sources, are present. As David Falk pointed out (and assuming both sides are willing to reciprocate), using Problem-Solving Strategies probably makes the most sense.

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.
 

The amount of information the attorney is subjected to every day can be overwhelming. If you want just enough information on today's headlines and top legal news to be able to keep up at that water cooler, then here are some legal shorts to help keep you up to beat:

Did you hear...

• “Jihad Jane,” a Pennsylvania resident, has been indicted for a conspiracy to provide support for terrorist in a murder plot overseas.
• Rodney Alcala, a serial killer who appeared as a guest on “The Dating Game,” has been recommended for the death penalty by a California jury.
• Police will question the Pittsburgh Steeler’s Ben Roethlisberger in regards to accusations of sexually assaulting a woman last Friday in a Georgia nightspot. Authorities are currently reviewing surveillance videos to determine what exactly happened.
• A Greenville, South Carolina woman was charged with homicide after shaking a two year-old child left in her care to death. The woman, Judy Greer, claims that she was trying to rock the child to sleep.
• New York’s own David Letterman is still in the news. His former television producer, Rober Halderman, pleaded guilty for attempted grand larceny. "I attempted to extort $2 million from David Letterman by threatening to disclose personal and private information about him, whether true or false," he said, according to Law.com.
• According to a court filing, former executives of the Milpitas, CA KLA Tencor Corporation settled a $33 million lawsuit regarding stock options backdating four years.
• Lindsay Lohan has sued an extension of E*Trade Financial Corporation, an online brokerage operator, in a claim that the company misappropriated her identity in a recent television ad. Lohan is seeking $100 million in damages and for the ad to be halted. The commercial refers to Lindsay as a “milkaholic.”

Consider this quote from a recent New York Times article about Derek Jeter playing in the last year of his 10-year, $189 million contract: "Per team policy, the Yankees do not negotiate contract extensions during the season."

Jeter, one of the best shortstops of all time, seems perfectly content to abide by the Yankees' policy and wait until the end of the season to discuss a new deal.

Why? The Yankees' policy gains negotiation power from three key objective criteria:

1. Precedent power - the Yankees' have followed this policy in past player negotiations;
2. Tradition power - the longer a practice is followed the stronger it becomes; and
3. Policy power - policies are used in the negotiation context to promote uniformity and consistency.

Good negotiators use objective criteria in negotiations to support their claim that something is "fair and reasonable." Here, the cumulative effect of multiple powerful objective criteria makes it very difficult for a player to argue otherwise.  Other teams which don't have a similar policy or have made prior exceptions would have a much harder time turning down a request from a top player like Jeter to negotiate a contract extension during the season.

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.

 

The contents of this article have been provided by Fernando M. Pinguelo and Frank Gonnello Jr.

'Trouble lurks when you rely on ‘a pure heart and an empty head’

Now, I know what you’re probably thinking.  “Revisit Zubulake!?  But that was so long ago!  Surely everything has changed!”  (Sarcasm)

To be fair, things were quite different back then – no iPhones, no clouds (in the IT world), no Google Any-Application-You-Can-Think-Ofs.  The technology landscape has certainly evolved since Zubulake became a household name.

But (at least) two things haven’t changed:  Judge Shira A. Scheindlin’s view of eDiscovery due diligence and parties’ (and their lawyers’) continued failure to meet these expectations.

In Her Honor’s latest eDiscovery-related opinion, Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Bank of Am. Secs., LLC, __ F. Supp. 2d __ (S.D.N.Y. 2010), Judge Scheindlin provides us all with a much needed reminder that sloppy (i.e., negligent or grossly negligent) document preservation and production will expose parties (and their lawyers) to the court’s arsenal of sanctions: from further discovery, to cost-shifting, to fines, to special jury instructions, to preclusion, to the most severe sanction of all – entry of default judgment or dismissal. 

If you’re looking for scandalous discovery abuses or headline-grabbing fines, you’re not going to find that here.  This case addresses boring, run-of-the-mill – yet all too common and very serious – sloppy preservation and production actions on the part of clients and their lawyers.

In Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan, a group of ninety-six investors filed the initial action in an attempt to recover $550 million in losses after the liquidation of two British Virgin Island-based hedge funds in which they held shares.   During the lengthy discovery process, defendants brought to the court’s attention substantial gaps in some (thirteen of the ninety-six) plaintiffs’ document productions. 

These defense allegations led to depositions and affidavits that detailed the steps (not) taken to preserve and produce documents (including electronically stored information). At the close of discovery, defendants sought the dismissal of the complaint or some alternative relief for plaintiffs’ discovery abuses. 

All tolled, the court found thirteen plaintiffs either negligent or grossly negligent in meeting their discovery obligations and issued sanctions that ranged from further discovery (at the low end), to monetary sanctions and an adverse inference “spoliation charge” (at the high end).  In true eLessons Learned fashion, let’s take a closer look at exactly why Judge Scheindlin found plaintiffs’ (and their lawyers’) efforts to be “flawed.”

The ‘Pure Heart and Empty Head’ Syndrome

It’s important to point out from the start that Scheindlin’s assessment of plaintiffs’ acts concluded decisively that this was an instance of careless and lazy preservation of data, as opposed to an intentional destruction of evidence.  Nonetheless, she concludes that “there can be little doubt that some documents were lost or destroyed.”   Thus, Scheindlin begins down the path of determining the appropriate sanctions for such conduct, despite plaintiffs’ “pure heart [and] empty head.”

But, before we solve the final puzzle (SAN_TIONS), here are the plaintiffs’ R-S-T-L-N and E (Reckless Steps Their Lawyers Negligently Endorsed):*

The Plaintiffs

• Plaintiffs did not issue an appropriate written litigation hold until a few years after they should have.
• Plaintiffs failed to execute a comprehensive and orderly search for documents.
• Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently guide, supervise, and monitor their employees' document collection.
• Plaintiffs submitted inaccurate, incomplete, vague, and contradictory declarations that misled defendants and the court about plaintiffs’ document preservation and production efforts.
• Plaintiffs failed to adequately prepare and produce witnesses with knowledge about document preservation and production efforts, including which files were searched, how searches were conducted, who was asked to search and what they were told, and the extent to which employees’ efforts were supervised.
• Plaintiffs’ document preservation and production efforts were found to be “severely deficient.”
• Plaintiffs failed to collect or preserve any electronic documents prior to their belated litigation hold.
• Plaintiffs failed to request documents from key custodians and witnesses.
• Plaintiffs’ memoranda (purporting to be litigation holds) never specifically instructed employees and key custodians not to destroy records.
• Plaintiffs designated employees with no experience conducting searches and who received no instruction on how to conduct searches, had no supervision during the collection, and had no contact with lawyers during the search.
• Plaintiffs unduly limited the scope of persons with relevant documents to the point of excluding many more who did in fact have responsive documents.
• One plaintiff’s representative admitted that she failed to search an executive’s PalmPilot, which may have contained relevant emails.
• One plaintiff’s general counsel at first declared that he supervised his company’s document search efforts; but later testified at a deposition that he delegated the search to a paralegal.  When pressed, he did not know the details of the paralegal’s communication with employees regarding preservation or whether employees complied. In fact, general counsel signed his declaration without fully investigating his company’s search efforts, and he lacked personal knowledge of many of the issues raised in his declaration.

Their Lawyers

• Lawyers’ telephone conversations, emails, and memoranda instructing plaintiffs to be over, rather than under, inclusive and noting that emails and electronic documents should be included in the production were not enough to constitute an effective litigation hold.
• Lawyers’ subsequent monthly case status memoranda, which included additional requests for documents, were not enough to constitute either an effective litigation hold or adequate monitoring.
• Lawyers failed to focus efforts on discovery while a three-year discovery stay was in place.
• Lawyers failed to sufficiently guide, supervise, and monitor their clients’ document collection.

* - On the surface, these actions may appear intentional or wanton to the unsuspecting eye.  However, what “saved” these thirteen plaintiffs was the fact that these errors were corrected later through the filing of amended declarations and other curative conduct.

Wheel of Sanctions

Now back to the sanctions.  Scheindlin stated “a plaintiff’s duty [to preserve information] is more often triggered before litigation commences, in large part because plaintiffs control the timing of litigation.”  Here, as with other cases we’ve blogged about, “the breach of the duty to preserve, and the resulting spoliation of evidence, may result in the imposition of sanctions by a court.”  Recognizing that not all sanctions are created equal, Scheindlin addresses which sanctions would be proper under the circumstances. 

She explains that for fines, cost shifting, and other “less severe” sanctions, the crux of the matter is the conduct of the spoliating party.  For more severe sanctions (i.e., dismissal, preclusion, and adverse inference jury instructions), “the court must consider, in addition to the conduct of the spoliating party, whether any missing evidence was relevant and whether the innocent party has suffered prejudice as a result of the loss of evidence.”

Scheindlin employs the following burden shifting test to deal with the burden of proof in cases such as this one, which seek more severe sanctions for egregious conduct: 

1. When the spoliating party’s conduct is sufficiently egregious to justify a court’s imposition of a presumption of relevance and prejudice, or when the spoliating party’s conduct warrants permitting the jury to make such a presumption, the burden shifts to the spoliating party to rebut that presumption.
2. If the spoliating party demonstrates to a court’s satisfaction that there could not have been any prejudice to the innocent party, then no jury instruction will be warranted, although a lesser sanction might still be required.

The Final Spin

After a lengthy and thorough review of the facts (indeed, Judge Scheindlin estimates that, collectively, almost 300 hours were spent on the motion and opinion), the court found that plaintiffs “failed to execute a comprehensive search for documents and/or failed to sufficiently supervise or monitor their employees’ document collection.”  Scheindlin concludes with the lesson of this case:

While litigants are not required to execute document productions with absolute precision, at a minimum they must act diligently and search thoroughly at the time they reasonably anticipate litigation.

The failure to issue an effective written litigation hold constitutes gross negligence because that failure is likely to result in the destruction of relevant information.  Furthermore, a litigation hold that places total reliance on clients’ employees to search and select what they believed to be responsive records without any supervision from counsel is not “effective.”

In the end, jurors will receive instructions that they are permitted to presume the lost evidence is relevant and favorable to the defendants.  Additionally, plaintiffs must now deal with monetary sanctions on top of their alleged $550 million losses. 

Scheindlin set the precedent for the consequences of this sort of behavior in Zubulake and subsequent decisions.  Courts are not going to accept excuses for disregarding now-standard principles and practices.  Attention must be paid to avoid the pitfalls documented by Judge Scheindlin.  Heed her warning because with one spin of the Wheel of Sanctions, you might not be able to afford buying a vowel.
 

The Legal Beat Takes you Behind The Course to meet faculty member, George Brunelle. Through his course on how to run a law firm ethically and profitably, he remembers the first night that he opened his own firm and why and how he knew he had made the right choice. He also recalls our first meeting and why teaching attorneys through CLE is so important. Go to Lawline.com soon to watch the full course.

On this wild Wednesday, I am changing things up with a bit more serious of a topic with an exclusive preview of new Lawline CLE Course with Seyfrath Shaw attorneys Devjani Mishra and Brian Murphy. In exploring USERRA, The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, Mishra and Murphy discuss knowing your rights and obligations under the law for employees' notice obligations and reinstallment rights, compensation, seniority and benefits protections, and state law and family military leave considerations. Go to Lawline.com soon to watch the full course.

Two connotations a Yankees World Series game may bring a baseball fan: an experience of a lifetime and a horrendous hit to the pocket book. However, foregoing the latter has caused New York Governor David A. Paterson a whole lot more of the former, but not in a good way.

On Wednesday, the state commission on Public Integrity charged Paterson with violating state ethics laws by accepting free tickets to the World Series opening game last fall between the Yankees and Phillies. This is in direct violation of the state’s ban on gifts to public officials.

The commission also determined that Paterson lied under oath in regards to his intentions of paying for the tickets. Further, Paterson is charged with violating two provisions of the Public Officers Law and three sections of the State Code of Ethics, according to the New York Times.

Amongst the scandal, the governor and his cabinet insist he will stay in office.

Does ethics study interest you? Be sure to check out Lawline.com Ethics courses.
 

With 6 Taxation Tuesdays to go before Tax Day, April 15, here are 7 new laws from Bankrate.com that you ought to know. From deductions for new homes, new cars, education, and even biking, The Legal Beat is keeping you up to speed as Tax Day  approaches.

In this episode of Behind The Course, Lawline.com introduces one of its faculty members, Criminal Defense attorney, Marc Agnifilo. Agnifilo discusses his passion for bonding with the humanity of every case. He also reflects on how he has changed as an attorney after 25 years of practice and even recalls his first big trial which involved bagels and a Machete! Lawline.com, meet your faculty member, Mark Agnifilo, and for more of Marc's CLE courses go to Lawline.com. 

In Round 2, of Lawline's Legal Beat quiz, So You Think You Know The Law, it comes down to 1 title, 2 attorneys, and 5 questions. Who's knows the law better? Will it be Milton Norman and Adam Denenberg?

In a final round of questions, Alan Schnurman reveals what maybe his own children did not know. With the help of the famous interviewer Bernard Pivot and his questionnaire, Alan answers the tough questions, like his favorite sound or alternative profession considerations. To see Alan's other interviews and courses go to Lawline.com and The Legal Beat.

In recognition for its recent inclusion in Best Companies New York's "40 Best Companies to Work for," Lawline.com's Chief Operations Officer Frank Bastone was featured in the February Edition of the Zweig HR Letter, a publication dedicated to highlighting the most innovative tactics on motivating and capturing the talent of employees. In the article, Bastone is attributed for his motivational innovativeness at Lawline.com and offers insights into the specific programs that led to the company's recent accolade.

Below is the featured article. Also refer here for the original publication from The Zweig HR Letter.

Look for Talent Everywhere and You Will Find It

A legal continuing education company puts brainstorming to good use.

When your firm needs fresh ideas— whether in the human resources department or on the front lines of business development—instead of always looking to the upper levels of management or the principals, how about opening the floor to everyone?

While at first blush it may seem like it invites chaos, one company has figured out how to put the old corporate saw of talent scouting and brainstorming into productive company-wide practices that give its employees a greater stake in idea-generation— and thus a greater sense of pride and ownership in the company.

Lawline.com (New York, NY), a 25- person company that provides online continuing education services to lawyers, was recently recognized by the New York State Society for Human Resource Management (NYSHRM) as one of the 40 Best Companies to Work for in New York. It will be honored with the award in April.

‘Real world school’

“We realize our greatest asset at Lawline.com is our employees and there are many specific examples of how we show this,” says Chief Operating Officer Frank Bastone.

Lawline.com makes it a policy to expose its employees to each department at the company.This allows them “to experience a full spectrum of our business development,” Bastone says.“We encourage them to take greater initiative in areas where they excel, and in return we help them further nurture that talent with increasingly greater responsibilities. “In essence,” he says,“we become a ‘real-world school’ that emphasizes and fosters the process of learning within the company.”

Bastone says Lawline.com’s focus on increasing its employees’ knowledge of the company from this perspective has made it a top place to work.

“We find that our employees develop a real vested interest in our company,” he says. “The passion they portray for their work and the passion they develop in growing our company have a synergistic effect on their motivation.This passion becomes contagious, and the positive environment that results is why we feel we were voted for this award.”

Cast a wide net for ideas

Lawline.com also makes it a point to mine that knowledge. Its HR department provides two ways that all employees can contribute ideas toward the growth of the company.

The first is called Innovation Days, Bastone says.

“During this meeting, we gather our entire staff and brainstorm ideas for new products, programs and innovations, utilizing a white board,” he says.“There are no limits, boundaries, or scope to the brainstorming session.”

Nor are there limits on who attends.

“Everyone, from our CEO to our newest intern, is given the opportunity to share and develop these ideas,” Bastone says. “At the end, we review and decide on the ideas that can improve the company and can be put into actionable steps.”

Exercise employees’ options

While internal idea generation has had great results, the company’s top brass is always on the lookout for new talent to add to the mix as well. It has found it in unexpected places.When Lawline.com’s president was exploring joining a gym for employees near the office, he was impressed with the corporate sales manager.

Lawline.com’s president hired the gym’s sales manager as a consultant to train employees in the company’s daily 8 a.m. meetings, which were eventually expanded into a program for the entire company.

“Our daily 8 a.m. meeting program began for our customer service department, but received such positive feedback that employees from separate departments began attending as well,” Bastone says.

“These meetings serve a multitude of purposes— from brainstorming and idea generation to motivational words and goal formations,” he says.“The results of this have been tremendous. Employee productivity has increased dramatically and the energy afterward has instigated great camaraderie and enthusiasm.”

And the consultant who started the whole idea? Three months later, the company hired him as full-time vice president of sales.