Resolution Strategies | A Monthly E-Newsletter


You’ve purchased two tickets to see the Lakers game, at a cost of $550. Just before you head out, it begins to pour. Knowing Los Angeles traffic as you do, you realize it could easily take two hours or more to get downtown, which means you are likely to miss the first half and might not arrive until the final 15-20 minutes of the game.

Alternatively. you can stay home and watch the whole game from the comfort of your family room, on your 60 inch flat screen TV. If you hadn’t already purchased the tickets, you’d opt to stay home. But you spent $550 on the tickets, so you hit the road.

Rational? Hardly. The money has been spent whether you go to the game or not, so why should your decision be different just because you already purchased the tickets? The answer lies in the fact that your hard-earned money is gone, but not forgotten. You believe you will feel better having spent the $550 on 15 minutes than you will having spent it on nothing.  


Last week, it happened again. In response to an offer deemed insulting, counsel for plaintiff said:

“I want to send them a message . . . “

Far too often, one side or the other instructs me to transmit a demand or offer which is intended to “send a message” to the other side. Before I will agree to do so, I always ask how the requesting party anticipates the other side will respond and whether such a tactic will promote resolution. Usually, the requesting party concedes “the message” is not likely to be well received and reluctantly admits that sending it might undermine whatever progress had already been made.  


On September 6, 1916, the 64th Congress of the United States passed legislation declaring that the Supreme Court shall hold one term annually, “commencing on the first Monday in October.” Today, for the second time in the past three years, the Court begins its term with less than its full complement of nine justices because the Senate has not yet completed the confirmation process concerning the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Last Friday, after hearing from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Kavanaugh the day before, the Senate Judiciary Committee completed its confirmation hearing and referred the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the full Senate, pending completion of a further investigation by the FBI. Ironically, the confirmation hearing provided a case study in “confirmation bias” — the tendency to seek and give greater weight to information which supports one’s existing beliefs and theories, while ignoring or undervaluing information which tends to refute those same beliefs and theories. “Confirmation bias” also includes the tendency to interpret new information in ways which support, rather than refute, one’s existing beliefs or theories.  

Subscribe to Resolution Strategies

To subscribe to Resolution Strategies, simply add your email below. A confirmation email will be sent to you!