Consider the following hypothetical: In a small town in Wyoming, known for the size of its Danish population, the river Underskud loftet ran through the beautiful countryside. On the north side of the river lived 40 families, who all worked for the same communally owned plant. On the south side lived another 57 families, who worked for a different manufacturer.
One day it was discovered that the riverbed was rich in two different minerals. One was a crucial element in a product made by the families on the north. The other had no value to them. The other, however, was the primary material used in a product made by the families to the south. Both sets of families wanted to immediately dredge the riverbed to harvest the minerals their businesses particularly needed, but could not do it simultaneously and could not agree on how to do it together.
Ann C. Biluper, a graduate of Wright University’s school of law, represented the Southern factory. Mat Décor, a graduate of the Pakreisi School of Law, represented the Northern plant. The companies asked their lawyers to hammer out a deal for the families. Each attorney’s fee agreement specified that they only got paid if a resolution was reached. After five days of nonstop negotiation, however, things were not going well.
Realizing they had the mutual interest of getting a deal done and getting themselves paid, Bilupuer and Décor, nonetheless reached an accord, allowing them to claim success. The resolution that was obtained, however, merely stated that each company president would select three villagers to meet, to attempt to reach an agreement themselves.
As an incentive to ensure an agreement was reached, the lawyers agreed between themselves that if the villages’ representatives could not reach an agreement within a 10 day period, each village would be obligated to contribute $200,000 to the other attorney’s favorite charity – an amount that would cripple each village. The agreement was reached without notifying either sets of families, yet obligated them to pony up the cash.
The questions posed
1) Does the fact that the lawyers agreed to a deal that could ultimately drastically hurt, rather than help, their clients constitute an acceptable agreement because it could incentivize them to compromise to reach an amicable accord that could help both sides to some degree?
2) Did the attorneys act ethically?
3) Would you hire either lawyer to represent your interests?
4) If you were president of one of the companies which hired the lawyers, would you believe this agreement earned the lawyers their fees, which were only due upon a successful conclusion of their negotiations?
Let us know your thoughts at comments@levisongroup.com
© 2011 under analysis llc. Under analysis is a nationally syndicated column of the Levision Group. Charles Kramer is a principal of the St Louis Missouri based law firm, Riezman Berger, PC. Any comments or criticisms about this column may be directed to the Levison Group c/o this newspaper, or directly via email to comments@levisongroup.com.