legal sanity

In this post and this one, I discussed the role of apology in preventing and resolving legal disputes. Here’s a recent article asserting that the conventional mea culpa brand of apology is actually a rarity in today’s legal negotiations. Such apologies are scarce, it proposes, because people (1) “don’t blame themselves for anything” and (2) believe that any apology will be disregarded or exploited by wary adversaries. Nonetheless, the piece continues, there’s a “different type of apology” that “can become one of the negotiator’s most effective tools.” This unconventional apology doesn’t convey liability or fault. Instead, it offers some genuine “recognition of the other side’s human condition” that allows them to feel “important and appreciated.” It acknowledges the human-to-human core of all legal conflicts. While such apology-making won’t guarantee “successful resolution,” the article concludes, it will open the door to that possibility by placing “everyone on a small tuft of common ground” and setting “the stage for tremendous progress in the conversation.”