NDM Interview Blog Post

For this post, I chose to interview a friend, associate, and most importantly, cousin of mine, Dondell Roberson-Patterson, who happens to be a practicing attorney in the Atlanta, GA area. Due to my current course’s focus on negotiation and deal making, I figured, who better to give some insight into professional negotiations.

LB: So tell me a bit about your educational background.

DRP: I obtained a B.A. from Tuskegee University in Tuskegee, Alabama in Psychology in 2001. I took two years off between undergrad and law school and worked for Suntrust Bank as an Assistant Branch Manager. In 2003 I entered Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan and graduated in 2006.  My concentration was Litigation since I was determined to be a criminal attorney because I had a genuine interest in helping wrongly accused defendants clear their names. 

LB: So what about your professional background? What would you say were your favorite and least favorite jobs?

DRP: During law school I was a law clerk for several Administrative Law Judges for the State of Michigan. After law school I did contract work for a firm in Atlanta, Ga. I didn't really care for this position because I was confined to an office, and I wanted to spend most of my time in a courtroom litigating.  I left the contract attorney job, took a huge pay cut and accepted a position with the Office of the Public Defender in Paulding County, Georgia. This was my best job because I litigated in court on a regular basis through jury trials and various types of hearings. This job really allowed me to be myself and really make a difference in the community. There is no feeling like hearing that the jury has found your client not guilty. Especially, when you believe in your client’s innocence. The downside of this job was that the pay was so bad; I had to leave after only working there for 2 years.

LB: Our curriculum emphasizes the idea of separating the people from the problem. Basically I take this to mean communicating to the other side of the negotiations that the negotiation is nothing personal. Do you find that professionals have a relatively simple time making this distinction, or do people often allow their emotions to affect their negotiations?

DRP: The issue with negotiation is that some people (prosecutors) take it personally.  It's simple, it's easier to negotiate with the prosecutors who understand it’s a job and only a job.  Now when the prosecutors get too involved with the case or find some reason to take it personally, the negotiation process becomes difficult; really difficult sometimes.

LB: The text that we have been studying highlighted the benefits of using objective criteria. Do you often find that individuals will ignore the flaws in statistics in an attempt to substantiate their constituency’s interests, or does there tend to be a code among professionals of good-faith negotiation based upon the fact that flawed facts waste everyone’s time?

DRP: I have only been practicing for 5 years but in those 5 years I believe the best way to handle my daily negotiations is not to get personally involved with the problem or issue, that there are 3 sides to every story and I base my negotiations clearly on the facts and the particular laws involved.

LB: How effective is the use of a BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) in accelerating the process of reaching a mutually beneficial agreement, or an agreement at all?

DRP: I am currently in employed with the city of Atlanta.  This job is not bad, but it doesn't allow me the option of jury trials.  For the most part, I go back and forth negotiating with the Prosecutor on why he or she should give my client less time or dismiss the charges against my client.  If that does not work, I then present the case to the judge in hopes that he does not find my client guilty.  Now, if the judge does find my client guilty, then I pretty much have to negotiate with him.  My negotiation with him is in reference to, whether or not my client should get jail time, a fine or neither. 

LB: Without being too specific (i.e. don’t incriminate anyone), how often do you see negotiators resort to using dirty tricks, such as illegal, unethical, or simply unpleasant bargaining tactics, and what methods would you say are the best means with which to deal with those?

DRP: In some situations, attorneys on both sides will lie or withhold evidence because they have become personally attached to the problem without considering the ethical violations they could face.  They could face suspension or even disbarment for some of the things they get in to.