with a problem and finding out what you need to know to solve the problem, and usually

working with other people doing that. Typically, we will be working with a scenario where people

are in conflict, or perhaps they are trying to do a deal of some sort. And they have some

general information that they both share, but they also have some private information

that's confidential to them and they come together and have a negotiation and trying

to reach a deal. We then usually debrief that negotiation session and talk about what worked,

what didn't work, what the challenges were. Try to bring out some of the pedagogical points

from their readings and some reflections for future practice. Typically, what I will have

done is given the students the problem ahead of time. They will have had a chance to do

research - if they're acting as a lawyer, meeting with their client - coming up with

some strategy that they want to try in the negotiation. So the idea is that they've actually

done a lot of the legwork up front and, when we come to the class, we go some housekeeping

matters first of all, making sure everyone's there, make sure they know what rooms they're

going to go to. The learning goals will vary by exercise. But just to give you an example,

some of these exercises will be design to get the students to ask questions. In particular,

types of questions, clarifying questions, probing questions - questions designed to

get at the interests that are underlying a particular parties position rather than just

simply horse-trading positions back and forth. So that would be one of the learning goals

and activities that would be associated with that. In a previous class, we may have actually

practiced asking some questions. Now they are doing it in the context of a problem.

So this is a personal injury case and the plaintiff in this case was involved in an

accident. [...] testify that they did find the chain unbroken and we've used it on a

number of projects before. Do you have any information about how the chain might have

slipped on the actual event? [...] The students are actually given a couple of letters that

the previous lawyer on the file wrote demanding payment, but now that lawyer is out of the

picture and a new lawyer has come in, namely the student is acting in the role of the lawyer,

and they're having to see if they can settle the case. One of the things is that they have

missing facts, so they going to be asking questions to try to get those facts. They'll

be trying to ask questions to try to get to the basis behind the numbers that were presented

and they might be citing some law to each other as to why the future earnings calculations

for example were either supported or unsupported. [...] In the supreme court's discussion of

that case, 20% was spoken as a incredulous number, and so I think that my client would

be willing to agree to a contingency fee in the range of 3 to 5%. I think that would be

reasonable. [...] According to the research we've done in younger people that don't have

any type of pre-existing medical condition, there is usually a forward recovery period

for both of those injuries. [...] There was no employment agreement. There was no salary

to be paid to my client. Well, I'm just trying to figure out was there, was it some sort

of a discount? [...] The exercises are usually timed, so they might be anywhere from 15 minutes

to an hour and after the exercise is over, the students are asked to do what we call

a debriefing within their own group, which means to analyze what it is that had just

gone on. I ask them to think about things that they struggled with, things that worked

for them, things that didn't work so well, things that they might try differently next

time. I also ask them to share their confidential facts will each other and often they are surprised

when they read and find out what they discovered and what they didn't discover through their

question-asking. Sometimes they will have a regret over the settlement that they reached,

but it's all good learning for them - it's a preparatory for them to bring that back

to the large group. [...] My strategy was to, like, I really thought we could come to

a better agreement. Cody came and worked for her, but again because their was tension,

that didn't work out. So my strategy did not work at all. That's why I kept prodding the

chain because I thought we have a huge ethical dilemma, you have a huge ethical dilemma.

I feel really bad right now that that's probably a sign that I broke my own ethics. Wouldn't

it be just as unethical for me to throw my client under the bus just so I don't have

to be unethical? If I was in the same situation tomorrow, what would I even say? I don't think

I would do too much differently because the outcome that we ended up with accorded with

my own personal values. So with the large group debriefing, which usually happens after

a break and they've had a chance to talk this over with each other and the groups that they

were working in. We come back together as a whole class and, at that point, I usually

ask in each group, we talk about if they actually reached a settlement, what terms of that settlement,

and why they settled on those particular terms. What were the things that they struggled with,

whether they did or didn't reach an agreement, and again what they would do differently next

time. One of the differences is there I'm usually asking questions or trying to pull

out themes that relate to the readings. So, it's a little more structured in that sense.

[...] I think my biggest challenge is asking for that kind of stuff. I don't - I'm not

really quite sure how I would have been comfortable asking you, like, how long do you have to

live? In terms of probing, I kind of pulled back a bit. So I just asked the general question

of can you explain to me in terms of being in suffering how you got to that value. You

can't cover every possible, but what could you ask. I found dealing with the client to

be something I hadn't anticipated. It was very different then the last negotiation.

But then also there can be after issues as well. Applying for remorse on a settlement.

Eye contact and you get a signal as to if something is okay or not okay or you need

to leave the room to talk about it. This comes up all the time in mediations. Especially

in Saskatchewan where you have early mediation in Queen's Bench cases mandated by legislation.

My approach was to try and let them hang themselves basically, like it talked about in the text

a little bit. Pre-exercise intensive. So a lot of what I'm doing is actually setting

up the problem, getting all the logistics straightened out, making sure everyone has

rooms to go to, that people are paired off properly and that sort of thing. Creating

the problem and creating worksheets or questions to be asked and answered after the negotiation.

During the exercise itself, I usually circulate among the various breakout rooms where the

students are working on this problem to get a sense of what is going on in each room.

I think that first and foremost, an interesting story. Something that is engaging, something

that the students can have a bit of fun reading and discussing with complexity, interesting

characters. Something that presents some broader issues as well and that requires the reader,

assuming that it is a written case, to think analytically about the problem and that's

relevant in some way. So, if you can pick cases that are perhaps connected to things

in the news, that sort of thing. It would have material in it that the students are

required to use to solve the case itself. As well as drawing on the readings or the

lecture material that the students would have heard in class. If you can create cases in

such a way that you compliment it with peer-based learning, then you create opportunities for

students to learn from each other and that enhances the learning experience. Another

things that I would say is that it's quite fine to make mistakes in cases. Sometimes

the best student learning comes from actually making mistakes and one of the great things

about cases and simulations, is that you can make a mistake without hurting a real-world

client or customer. I'm more interested in what the students are trying to do in the

simulation than the result. The result does count for something, but what's more important

to me is that the students are trying to put into practice the things that they've learned

in an abstract way. Maybe it means that they're trying to push the envelope or try something

that they wouldn't normally be comfortable doing. It might work, or might not work, but

at least they've tried and experimented with it and they could see how it goes and their

colleagues can give them feedback as well.