Our Client’s Situation:

A bankruptcy litigator proposed a settlement negotiation with the opposing counsel. The opposing counsel was unresponsive for an extended period of time, until he responded with a highly untenable settlement offer. The offer was not accepted and the case went to trial.

My client was preparing for the trial when he called Human Interactions Solutions for assistance. My client’s desired outcome was to win the bankruptcy court case. Immediately, Human Interaction Solutions went to work to provide valuable insights and strategies to help our client win the case.

Our Research and Insights:

Through our research and predictive analytics, Human Interaction Solutions discovered key characteristics about our client, the opposing counsel, the opposing counsel’s client, and the presiding judge. These insights guided our recommended approach and strategy for our client.

We discovered that the opposing counsel had a long and very successful history of forcefully representing his clients. He had a reputation of being a tenacious attorney and completely focused and driven to win for his client, regardless of his client’s strengths or weaknesses. He was smart, psychologically and emotionally strong with a forceful and friendly personality with few psychological or emotional issues. He understands how to use power and create meaning in such a way to influence his opposition and the judges. His psychological makeup fits the profile of risk-taker – and someone who is self-convinced that certain factors are important for a decision, but likely those factors are not as important as he believes or claims.

Our research unveiled that the opposing counsel’s client was very likely to be motivated by power needs with an exaggerated need to win. He had a long history of bringing litigation and being sued. The combination of these character traits makes it difficult for him to compromise. We concluded that the stalled response to negotiations and the unreasonable settlement offer was a result of the attorney’s inability to control his client. In addition, we concluded that negotiations could not lead to a reasonable settlement and going to court was, indeed, the only option.

Our psychological, personality, behavioral analysis, and history of rulings of the judge strongly suggested that he was an active participant in his court. He had a strong analytical mind and wanted statements backed by the law, facts and figures. He was also likely to dislike emotional arguments, and displays of emotion could make him feel alienated.

Strategy & Outcome:

We tailored an action strategy that turned our research insights and conclusions into an advantage for our client, in summary:

  • Present and emphasize unemotional, rational and factual arguments to match the judge’s preferred communication style.
  • Study opposing attorney’s arguments and listen for logical-sounding but inconsistent fact patterns to uncover exaggerations and weaknesses in argument.
  • Remain calm and continue logical arguments while under pressure while opposing counsel becomes emotionally charged.