When
I
was
in
law
school,
negotiation
was
not
a
required
class
(it
now
is).
Still,
the
reputation
of
our
negotiation
program
and
negotiation
faculty
convinced
me
negotiation
would
be
more
than
worthwhile
to
take
as
an
elective.
I
learned
a
lot
in
that
course,
and
further
honed
my
negotiation
skills
during
a
decade
and
a
half
of
civil
litigation.
I
wouldn’t
claim
to
be
a
negotiation
expert
—
I
could
mention
a
couple
other
attorneys
out
there
who
really
are
—
though
I
held
my
own
in
settling
a
lot
of
cases.
We
are
not
going
to
cover
every
nuance
of
negotiating
successfully
here
in
a
few
hundred
words.
Even
so,
some
basic
principles
are
critical
to
any
type
of
negotiation.
You
want
to
go
into
a
negotiation
knowing
a
lot.
You
need
to
know
your
strengths,
and
even
more
importantly,
your
weaknesses.
But
a
negotiation,
by
definition,
is
not
only
about
you.
Sun
Tzu
had
this
figured
out
some
2,500
years
ago:
If
you
know
the
enemy
and
know
yourself,
you
need
not
fear
the
result
of
a
hundred
battles.
If
you
know
yourself
but
not
the
enemy,
for
every
victory
gained
you
will
also
suffer
a
defeat.
If
you
know
neither
the
enemy
nor
yourself,
you
will
succumb
in
every
battle.
Every
once
in
a
while,
especially
if
one
or
both
sides
are
bluffing,
you
can
resolve
a
case
through
early
mediation.
This
is
exceptionally
rare,
however,
because
in
the
absence
of
robust
discovery
both
sides
go
into
it
essentially
knowing
nothing
beyond
their
own
exceptionally
biased
viewpoints.
In
a
lawsuit,
you
need
to
know
the
other
lawyer’s
skills,
their
appetite
for
trial
(and
appeal),
and
their
ability
to
accurately
assess
the
strength
of
their
case.
You
need
to
be
introspective
enough
to
have
an
equally
good
look
at
yourself
about
these
things.
You
need
to
know
the
judge:
how
he
or
she
has
ruled
in
similar
cases
in
the
past,
how
his
or
her
decisions
tend
to
hold
up
on
appeal.
You
need
to
know
the
clients,
on
both
sides.
How
much
are
they
willing
to
spend?
Are
they
mostly
rational
in
terms
of
the
results
they
seek,
or
is
it
all
about
something
other
than
money
to
them?
Do
they
have
some
sense
of
honor
in
adhering
to
what
they’ve
agreed
to,
or
will
they
try
to
weasel
out
of
any
deal
that
isn’t
locked
down
as
tightly
as
possible?
There
is
also
a
lot
of
material
out
there
about
what
I
would
somewhat
derisively
call
gamesmanship
during
the
actual
negotiation
itself,
like
anchoring
the
other
side’s
perception
of
value.
Knowing
about
that
stuff
isn’t
going
to
necessarily
hurt
you,
in
that
at
the
very
least
you
can
avoid
succumbing
to
the
other
side’s
psychological
tricks.
Yet,
it’s
not
going
to
win
you
anything
you
weren’t
otherwise
already
going
to
get
when
faced
with
a
well-prepared
opponent
either.
Like
many
things,
a
successful
negotiation
is
mostly
about
preparation
and
knowledge.
Meanwhile,
President
Donald
Trump,
the
self-styled
“dealmaker”
president,
is
just
about
the
worst
person
I
have
ever
seen
anywhere
at
negotiation.
It’s
all
gamesmanship,
and
not
even
cogent
gamesmanship.
Rather
than
developing
an
intimate
understanding
of
both
sides
of
a
complex
issue
so
he
knows
where
he
can
strategically
apply
leverage
to
achieve
the
best
result
possible
within
the
range
of
realistic
outcomes,
it’s
more
like
he
barrels
in,
knowing
nothing,
with
a
laundry
list
of
irrational
demands
that
often
don’t
even
benefit
him
and
almost
never
actually
benefit
the
United
States
of
America.
He
refuses
to
budge,
he
makes
threats,
he
insults
everyone
on
both
sides,
he
talks
to
someone
on
the
other
side
then
completely
switches
sides
before
switching
back
again,
he
throws
a
tantrum
like
a
small
child,
and
eventually,
whatever
the
actual
outcome,
he
announces
victory
with
no
mechanisms
in
place
to
enforce
the
supposed
agreement.
A
few
weeks
later
he’s
typically
forgotten
all
about
the
whole
thing
and
moved
on
to
something
else.
There
are
far
too
many
examples
of
this
“dotard
asshole
negotiation”
approach
to
go
into
each
in
detail.
But
what
has
been
consistent,
from
Trump’s
many
trade
negotiations
([insert
untrustworthy
country
here]
promised
to
invest
a
gajillion,
kajillion
dollars
in
the
U.S.!)
to
the
“peace”
he
“helped”
broker
in
the
Middle
East
(which
amounts
to
Israel
simply
having
been
allowed
to
level
Gaza
with
U.S.
taxpayer
support),
his
direct
involvement
in
any
negotiation
results
in
a
worse
result
for
the
American
people.
The
only
time
Trump’s
negotiation
style
worked
was
when
he
used
it
against
several
large
law
firms
and
a
handful
of
big
corporations
because
they
are
gigantic
cowards
who
somehow
managed
to
know
even
less
than
he
did.
His
signature
bombardment
of
nonsense
will
not
do
anything
to
help
end
the
unjustified
Russian
invasion
of
Ukraine,
the
latest
example
of
Trump
trying
to
apply
his
nonskills
as
a
dealmaker
by
pressuring
Ukraine
to
simply
accept
all
of
Russia’s
demands
and
thereby
invite
their
adversary
back
to
finish
the
job
in
a
couple
years.
In
refusing
an
offer
to
be
evacuated
during
the
early
days
of
the
war,
when
everyone
though
Russia
would
trample
its
much-smaller
opponent
in
a
matter
of
days,
Ukraine’s
President
Volodymyr
Zelensky
said,
“I
need
ammunition,
not
a
ride.”
I
was
just
in
Ukraine
last
month,
and
the
Ukrainian
people’s
will
to
fight
on
has
not
waned.
They
are
not
going
to
surrender
their
country,
especially
not
because
of
Trump’s
ineffectual
flailing
about.
Trump
can’t
negotiate
his
way
out
of
a
paper
bag.
He’d
do
better,
and
come
off
better,
if
he
focused
instead
on
helping
Ukraine
get
Russia
out
of
their
country
militarily.
Jonathan
Wolf
is
a
civil
litigator
and
author
of Your
Debt-Free
JD (affiliate
link).
He
has
taught
legal
writing,
written
for
a
wide
variety
of
publications,
and
made
it
both
his
business
and
his
pleasure
to
be
financially
and
scientifically
literate.
Any
views
he
expresses
are
probably
pure
gold,
but
are
nonetheless
solely
his
own
and
should
not
be
attributed
to
any
organization
with
which
he
is
affiliated.
He
wouldn’t
want
to
share
the
credit
anyway.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].