Watson V. Watson's Negotiation Case

I had the pleasure of interviewing Stephen, a top attorney in an in house counsel position at a company that is known throughout the world. Stephen obtained his law degree from the University of Texas and has more than fifteen years of experience as an attorney in various legal positions. The legal office at the company consists of more than two hundred attorneys worldwide. Stephen works as either a litigator for the company or as supervising counsel for the company when it hires outside firms on its behalf. Stephen is often involved in serious negotiations that have the potential to have negative consequences on the company’s overall growth, development, and business operations. Stephen went to great lengths to explain a recent court verdict
“Move It” The plaintiffs’ main argument in the case centered on that of the main plaintiff, Mary Watson, a single woman. Ms. Watson claimed when she visited one of the Move It’s outlet stores, she observed several items that were marked with tags containing two prices; a “Suggested Retail Price” and a lower “Our Price”. Ms. Watson claimed the company led her to believe that she was paying less for items that were previously sold for a higher price, when, in fact, Move It never sold those items at the suggested retail price. Specifically, Ms. Watson claimed that Move IT advertised on the price tags of its outlet product the suggested retail price and then advertised, on the same price tags, a price termed “Our Price,” which she believed represented a steep discount off of the suggested retail price. Ms. Watson believed the product’s tags bearing the suggested retail price and the “Our Price” (“the false discounted price”) were illegal advertisements under state law. Ms. Watson alleged that Move It’s use of the dual price tags was misleading to reasonable consumers and asserted such causes of action including, false advertising, unjust enrichment, violating the consumers legal remedies act, and unfair competition. Ms. Watson sought monetary damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as
Watson and opposing counsel on two different occasions before they filed their claim after receiving an email from the opposing counsel. Stephen prepared by doing legal research on the verdicts of similar cases within the state, assessing the evidence and strength of Ms. Watson’s claim, and reviewing how Move It had handled previous similar cases in the past in other states. At the first negotiation meeting Stephen wanted to learn all he could about Ms. Watson, her claim, and the potential class action lawsuit plaintiffs. Stephen did not disclose any information at this first negotiation meeting; the meeting was solely to gather information and to evaluate the competence of opposing counsel. Stephen determined from his first meeting that Ms. Watson did not have strong claims and her main objective appeared to be financial. Opposing counsel informed Stephen that they demanded nearly $5 million dollars, but were willing to settle for $4 million dollars. Stephen explained that he would have to review his options and inform them about his company’s decision at the meeting. In the subsequent meeting, in a sign of good faith, Stephen informed Ms. Watson that Move It usually does not consider paying for any issues that Ms. Watson listed in her complaint. However, he said they were willing to pay her restitution in exchange for her rescinding the lawsuit. Ms. Watson’s counsel declined the offer and tried to explain the