Negotiating with the Government

I had the opportunity to negotiate with a number of government agencies for clients, and there is a difference between private industry and the administrative agencies and how they should address. The search for the "Practical Guide to Attorney negotiations, 2nd Edition" by Donner and Crowe also offers several general considerations when negotiating with the government. In this article, I will share some thoughts and considerations on the subject to assist you in your next negotiation with a government agency.

Administrators often have a goal that is founded in public policy, rather than less of principle to promote the objectives of monetary or otherwise. While some may say this of any interaction or negotiation, it is mostly true that the first step in any negotiation with administrative agency is to establish a good working relationship. Until the trader recognizes that social welfare must play a role in the process, it is usually possible for private actors to negotiate with administrative bodies in a friendly, cordial, without resorting to fighting techniques.

When litigating against administrative agency, it can often be difficult to realize a monetary settlement to resolve the issue because of the political nature of many administrative programs. These programs often have more weight on mere monetary matters. In addition, private entities that have long-term stake in the resolution of the particular case may have a stronger interest in the background, which makes it even more important that their lawyers focus their attack on those aspects of the case, that are regulated by some aspect of public policy. Therefore, it can be very beneficial to negotiate rather than fight with the administrators.

In a brief summary of benefits to good faith bargaining over contenders with the administrators of Peter H. Schuck, Yale Law School, as quoted in the prosecutor's Practical Guide to the negotiations, 2. Edition, "includes reasons how to find solutions between the extreme positions that will be enforced by the parties in litigation, exposing the true intensity of preferences, rather than exaggerate these intensities, and stimulating the flow of information between the parties, rather than coercion communication InterParty. Schuck recognizes also the important advantage that, due to a contracted solution is essentially voluntary and emerges from a process that helps to build consensus, is able to generate support from both sides for its implementation. Therefore, a cooperative philosophy, while limited in value in some contexts, is of particular importance in the context of administrative issues.

Sometimes it can be easy to get caught up in the adversarial process and forget how important it is to fight for a friendly, productive relationship with a director or controller. E 'essential human nature to be more receptive and trusting someone you know and remember. It might be a good idea to remember the old cliché, "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" the next time you're dealing with a government agency. This proverb suggests you can win people to your side more easily by gentle persuasion and flattery that a comparison hostile, and may be particularly true when it comes to government agencies.

Usually, the first contact with the agency by a lawyer is in the form of a letter informing the agency that the lawyer was retained. The letter must be sturdy and professional, and must indicate a willingness to reach an amicable solution. Harsh or threatening first contact may cause the agency to develop an excessively defensive posture, which may obstruct or impede future negotiations. Establish a good first impression with the agency and its lawyer can go a long way towards trading success.

Establish a relationship of mutual trust and respect between the parties creates a greater likelihood that an agreement will be reached. In addition, all future dealings between the parties will be easier. To facilitate this process, we must demonstrate our commitment to cooperation from the outset. We must convince the agency, agency or lawyer, not only his interest in the study, but those are also in the public interest. There are many ways to appeal effectively to the aesthetic needs of the agency, but one of the simplest is to remember the golden rule and treat those who are dealing with the same that you would like to be treated. Respect and consideration go a long way in the negotiations, but especially when it comes to government agents that can often be the recipients of communications policies that are hostile to respect, but do not put in place. You must then remember to keep their commitment to cooperation during the entire negotiation process, even if it ends up being challenged.

While the advice in this column will help solve most of the negotiations, there are situations in which the concerns of your customers can not be addressed and will need to consider the possibility of filing suit. If you exhaust all other means of redress, and you were able to negotiate a satisfactory agreement to obtain a favorable decision by an administrator, a lawsuit may be appropriate. This may also help the negotiations and that is why I said you need to keep your commitment to cooperation even during litigation. Filing suit may be useful to encourage administrators to rethink their positions and allow the participation of the board who might not otherwise have been involved. If you have established a relationship of mutual trust, the cause may be just a stepping stone to the settlement rather than a mess that can sometimes be contradictory. The bottom line is that lawyers must always maintain the objectives of their clients in mind and recognize that negotiations with the government are often different from those with the private sector and, therefore, trading strategies and tactics must conform to the situation at hand ....