![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Okay, I have to gloat here a little bit because in an hour I have class and I don't want to do it there. I've discovered that in the first semester of law school, just about everyone is discovering that they are not nearly as smart and superior as they once thought they were, back in college and high school and all those small ponds. So when you get some affirmation that you are, in fact, not doing too badly, you feel really good about it, but not everyone else is going to want to hear about it. And I like having 1L friends.
So last night was the first round of the Negotiations Competition. That's the only competition at our school open to first-semester 1Ls, so it was very well populated. We were given a fact pattern and a side to represent (we were the El Camino Golf Resort and Conference Center in Palmtreal, woo-hoo!), and 45 minutes with a team representing the other side to try and reach a settlement based on the fact pattern and two pages of confidential information about what our client wanted to gain and was willing to give up.
Now, I don't think my partner Ryan and I are going to advance. We went over time by a minute or so, and we didn't actually reach a settlement. Not for lack of trying, but the other team had a hard time figuring out what "compromise" meant in terms of them not getting every concession they asked for. They also hadn't apparently done any research to realize how very weak the statute was that they were seeking damages under. I had, and when I pointed that out to them, their response was, "Well, our interpretation of the statute varies." And I replied, very nicely and concernedly, "Can you tell me what case law you're looking at to make that interpretation? I've studied this quite a bit and I didn't see a thing, but I may have missed something." They hrmphed and backpedaled and it was good for us.
At the end of the round, the three judges critiqued us, and all three of them mentioned me specifically as doing a really good job. One of the judges said she wanted to hire me, that what I did in standing up to the opposition when he tried to set aside my facts about the statute was just perfect. They said I did a good job of representing my side convincingly, basically by successfully getting into character as counsel for the hotel. They also said that Ryan and I worked really well together, and that he did a great job taking the lead in the initial stages of the negotiation by establishing our damages as concrete fact and their claims as nothing more than potential damages they might seek from us. I think this was actually more fun than a lot of the debating I've done, because it wasn't just about hammering home your points and trying to be more aggressive and convincing (and talk faster!) than the other team. Decisions had to be made about what information to reveal, what to hold back, and what to save for a crucial moment.
In any case, there were probably forty teams competing, and only the top six will go on. Even if we don't go on, I feel awesome about last night. It was great, and now I really want to take Negotation next year.
So last night was the first round of the Negotiations Competition. That's the only competition at our school open to first-semester 1Ls, so it was very well populated. We were given a fact pattern and a side to represent (we were the El Camino Golf Resort and Conference Center in Palmtreal, woo-hoo!), and 45 minutes with a team representing the other side to try and reach a settlement based on the fact pattern and two pages of confidential information about what our client wanted to gain and was willing to give up.
Now, I don't think my partner Ryan and I are going to advance. We went over time by a minute or so, and we didn't actually reach a settlement. Not for lack of trying, but the other team had a hard time figuring out what "compromise" meant in terms of them not getting every concession they asked for. They also hadn't apparently done any research to realize how very weak the statute was that they were seeking damages under. I had, and when I pointed that out to them, their response was, "Well, our interpretation of the statute varies." And I replied, very nicely and concernedly, "Can you tell me what case law you're looking at to make that interpretation? I've studied this quite a bit and I didn't see a thing, but I may have missed something." They hrmphed and backpedaled and it was good for us.
At the end of the round, the three judges critiqued us, and all three of them mentioned me specifically as doing a really good job. One of the judges said she wanted to hire me, that what I did in standing up to the opposition when he tried to set aside my facts about the statute was just perfect. They said I did a good job of representing my side convincingly, basically by successfully getting into character as counsel for the hotel. They also said that Ryan and I worked really well together, and that he did a great job taking the lead in the initial stages of the negotiation by establishing our damages as concrete fact and their claims as nothing more than potential damages they might seek from us. I think this was actually more fun than a lot of the debating I've done, because it wasn't just about hammering home your points and trying to be more aggressive and convincing (and talk faster!) than the other team. Decisions had to be made about what information to reveal, what to hold back, and what to save for a crucial moment.
In any case, there were probably forty teams competing, and only the top six will go on. Even if we don't go on, I feel awesome about last night. It was great, and now I really want to take Negotation next year.
