Then don’t say anything at all! That’s the old adage at least. I wish I saw it followed more in the legal field.
I got to thinking about this recently when reviewing a letter/counter-offer written to me by an opposing attorney as part of negotiations in a dissolution of marriage (divorce) proceeding. Because in my example, the attorney (and ostensibly her client) were agreeing with us and on the substance doing exactly what we and they wanted. Simply, they were in agreement with me and my client about how to divide a marital asset. But, in the sentence before it’s stated that we agree to divide said asset in such-and-such way, the attorney states, “Client X has done nothing to contribute to the acquisition of assets in recent years.”
Now, I’m not naive here, there’s a place for criticism and threats as a negotiating tactic when you can back them up and when they serve a purpose. But, if you’re in agreement, what purpose does the “dig” serve? The purpose it often serves is to upset the recipient to an extent he/she may no longer be too thrilled about settling something that you just agreed to settle.
Now, why’d ya make that stupid comment again?
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
