Everyone knows that a bottom line in a lawsuit is an immutable “line in the sand” that is accurately reported to mediators and counterparts as the least that a plaintiff would accept or most that a defendant would pay.
Not really. During the life cycle of a case, lawyers start with vague and tentative bottom lines, and they develop more precise and confident bottom lines as the case progresses. People typically are not candid with others – and sometimes even with themselves – about their real walkaway point (or “trip wire”) for ending negotiations. Indeed, “bottom line” claims are standard negotiation gambits using wildly inflated numbers that experienced negotiators and mediators routinely assume to be false.
In the common “positional negotiation” game, parties may repeatedly reduce their bottom line expectations when they find that their counterparts are unwilling to be “reasonable.” Conversely, parties may increase their bottom line if they discover favorable evidence or legal authority or if they gain some other strategic advantage.
