1. the latest time or date by which something should be completed.
“the deadline for submissions is February 5th”
historical
2. a line drawn around a prison beyond which prisoners were liable to be shot.
Deadlines induce stress, anxiety and even panic. Deadlines, or rather, meeting deadlines is critical to be successful in life. Projects, bills and responses have deadlines. Sometimes there may be false deadlines, sometimes deadlines may have dire consequences. Knowing the difference is key.
In law school I took Counseling & Negotiation. It was an upper level class taught by an Adjunct Professor, X.M. “Mike” Frascogna. About half way through the semester he made an offer, any student would be guaranteed a “C” if they attended the remaining classes. They did not have to take the final. I recall a student took that offer. I did not consider it.
The final required us to negotiate with the professor for our final grade. There was no set exam. Their were wild stories of students doing wild stunts to get an A. However, one of the lessons that stuck with me was either not allowing the other side to know your deadline or setting a deadline that you know would put pressure on the other side. He told the story of an international negotiation where one person let the other side know he was flying out in 4 days. They wined and dined him, showed him the sights and otherwise occupied his time for 3 1/2 days. On the last day, the traveler agreed to a worse deal because it had to be finalized that day.
Deadlines matter.
Matthew Thompson is a Family Law Attorney in Mississippi and negotiated his way to an A in Counseling & Negotiation.
It’s an expression from the gambling world, but holds true in family law too.
Overplaying your hand is when you think you have the advantage, but do to whatever reason you don’t. Sometimes it’s because an important piece of information was not disclosed, or perhaps overlooked, or because the opponent has the ability to make a situation appear to be something that it is not.
For instance, it’s common in custody disputes for one side to want full custody and the other to want joint. The side that wants joint describes each side’s parenting as basically 50/50 and, of course, there is no need for child support. The side that wants full custody describes the parenting as more 80/20 and seeks support. The full custody parent can also back up their claims. They know the teachers, doctors, children’s schedules, and have done the primary care-giving. The side that wanted joint, well their job did not allow them to really do joint, but the 20% of the time they were around, they did 50% of the parenting. That would have been nice to know on the front end.
The bottom line is to be sure to tell your lawyer everything. If you do, you can be protected as much as possible. If you don’t, they may call your bluff and you could be up the river.
Matthew Thompson is a Divorce attorney in Mississippi and warns you that sometimes calling the person who is overplaying their hand can backfire on you. So be careful either way.
Oftentimes I am asked the difference between settling a case and litigating a case to a conclusion. In my experience, more often than not, settling your case leads to a better result. Here’s why.
It eliminates the uncertainty of a Court ruling. You know what you get.
It usually results in a quicker end.
It can save money.
Settlement gives your more control and “say” in the final outcome.
Settling your case allows the matter to end on a “positive” note, perhaps more amicable than otherwise.
Cases can be settled through a variety of ways, through negotiation or mediation, either through the parties, through the attorneys or a combination of both.
These are just some of the reasons why settling your case may be best. However, there are also those cases that cannot be settled. Typically, hotly contested custody cases cannot be settled because both parties genuinely believe that they have to fight for what they think is best. And sometimes the other party is just a big jerk that makes everything a fight!
Know this;
People don’t get taken to the cleaners (unless they agree).
Suing on principle is unsatisfying and expensive.
Bulldog lawyers seldom make a difference in the outcome, they only alter how you get there.
Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney in Mississippi and can attest that big jerks can try to fight, but usually get what they deserve…
I will be mediating a family law case, or rather agreeing to mediate a divorce, custody and property division case in the near future. Mediation is a process whereby the parties agree to meet and attempt to resolve all issues prior to going to trial or without having to go to trial.
In a mediation the parties agree to hiring a third-party, typically another attorney or retired judge, to “hear” their case. Now the mediator is NOT the main authority. In fact, the mediator cannot compel either of the parties to do or agree to anything. The mediator’s role is to point out the strengths and weaknesses of each sides case and to try to find common ground. Sometimes the mediation is based on reason and logic and sometimes it is based on emotion or just some number someone is trying to reach. Almost anything can be mediated, though a rule of thumb is to not mediate when not prepared factually, legally (research wise), or with an abuser.
Pros:
The parties have the ultimate say in the final outcome.
Mediator gets to hear “everything,” so a party may have their “say.”
It is appeal proof. (unless fraud involved)
It can save fees and expenses.
It can reveal strengths and weaknesses in a case.
It works. (approx 90% of the time)
Cons:
If there is no agreement there is no settlement.
Mediator’s opinion is non-binding.
It can add a layer of expense.
It can be frustrating.
It may not work.
Mediation is not a silver bullet to end litigation. It is just another implement in the tool box of resolving and litigating cases.
Is mediation right for you? Almost any matter can be mediated. Speak to your attorney for more information.
Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney and believes in the mediation process, though it may not be right in every situation.
With High School and College Football in full action it reminded me of some of the lighter, or at least non-traditional, custody battles that I have been involved in.
Season Football Tickets- I was involved in a case where the parties were arguing over who got the season football tickets.
The tickets were secured by one party who had been getting them for years, but were actually paid for by the other party, so both felt they had a legitimate claim, additionally both genuinely wanted the tickets. It was not posturing by the wife to get a better deal or more support. The solution was joint custody.
Each picked certain games that they would attend each year and on the ones that both wanted to attend they agreed to alternate even years and odd years to determine who got to go. Another interesting aside was that there were 2 tickets for each game. Who the guest would be was also an issue. Neither wanted the other to be able to take a bf/gf. The compromise there was that the other ticket would be used by a family member or a minor friend of the children. (Minor meaning under 21, not just small). The custody of the tickets was one of the last issues to get resolved. It really did matter.
Dogs- In a similar vein, I have handled several cases involving pets. Pets, under Mississippi law are considered personal property (like an item or thing), however the parties are free to treat pets as members of the family should they so elect, and many do.
The parties ultimately agreed on a week-on, week-off custody arrangement for the dog to be with each “parent.” The agreement also addressed the expenses associated with the dog, including food, care and vet bills. Don’t forget those items!
(601) 850-8000 - - BowTieLawyer.MS 