Small Law Firms

What Is The Ransberger Pivot?

Simply listen. Don’t interrupt, don’t talk.

By  
on

How many times have we, as lawyers, said to someone, usually opposing counsel, occasionally to a client, that he or she is wrong? We never say it to the judge, at least not if we care about our careers, but occasionally we say, “with all due respect, your Honor,” which I consider to be code for “you’re wrong.” Do we ever really win an argument? In litigation, we leave it to the court to resolve the argument, which is costly and inefficient and sometimes, neither side truly “wins.”

Have you ever heard of the Ransberger Pivot? Not me, until I came across the term in one of the various daily news feeds I get. I think it’s an especially interesting term for those of us who spend our careers arguing one side or the other, and in these fractured times, it may be especially useful.

The Ransberger Pivot is a way to start a discussion with people who don’t agree with you without telling them they are wrong. When emotions run high, that can be extremely hard to do. Stifling yourself doesn’t always work. Invented by Ray Ransberger and Marshall Fritz, two people whose names I did not know, the pivot is a way to dial down confrontations in disagreements. How many times (and we are all guilty of this), in exasperation, frustration, or whatever, do we just blurt out (yelling, hollering, whatever) that the person who disagrees is just plain wrong? That’s not exactly the way to start out a conversation in the hopes of persuading someone to see your point of view and even have a change of mind.

If the goal of the pivot is to get parties in a disagreement to get to the same side, rather than opposite sides, then that’s what every attorney should try to do. Finding points of agreement helps to narrow the issues and hopefully, convince, persuade, and eventually resolve the dispute.

The pivot approach is simple. The first and most important step is to STFU and just listen. How many of us have problems with that? Simply listen. Don’t interrupt, don’t talk. Questions can be asked, but not in a confrontational manner. This is not a cross-examination. There is plenty of time for that later if agreement isn’t reached.

Secondly, start out with points of agreement. Find out what the other person’s needs and interests are. There is always at least one point of agreement. Sometimes little things lead to the bigger agreements. Trite but true.

The third pivot point is what I call the “whoops” element. If there’s been a mistake, a misunderstanding, a screwup, then admit it. That willingness to admit error, to own it, and to apologize usually goes a long way. Our egos are fragile. Admitting a mistake if there is one (and we all know that the practice is not error-free) can help. We practice law, we don’t perfect it.

Sponsored

Finally, keep at it. The pivot provides the opportunity for rational discussion about differences, how to meet common objectives, rather than escalating the disagreement by using the two words: “You’re wrong.” If any two words can light a fuse, it’s those two. No one wants to be wrong, and yet in litigation, one side will be right, one will be wrong. As many of us have found out to our dismay, how we say what we say matters (and that extends way beyond lawyering). Social media faux pas, for example?

The Ransberger Pivot is about persuasion. How to be a more persuasive lawyer? The article suggests six things to do, and some of them mirror the pivot.

The first is to acknowledge the efforts of those who disagree with you. One of the hardest things that we must do, egocentric as we are, is to acknowledge the other position. It’s the flip side of saying “you’re wrong.” That can often take substantial grinding of teeth, which may make your dentist happy.

Secondly, express understanding. Again, that doesn’t mean that you agree, but that you understand what their positions are. Next is to build rapport. That can be really hard to do when someone is yelling at you, but, as the Brits said during World War II, “keep calm and carry on.” Could that be a motto for us?

The last three things are just as simple but can be just as hard to do: state your position in just one sentence (a variation on the “elevator speech”), be empathetic, and find, if possible, a common enemy. I always called it seeking an “empty chair.”

Sponsored

When dealing with obstreperousness, sometimes I find it less stressful to just refuse to engage. (Chickening out, some might say, but I do like to keep my blood pressure in check. And I am here to tell you that your health must be just as much a priority as everything else. I didn’t do that and as an old lady lawyer, I am now paying the price for such inattention.) Will the Ransberger Pivot or any other of these techniques work to facilitate agreement? Any harm in trying? Anything that can help to facilitate resolution of even the littlest dispute is worth the effort.

Remember that the practice of law is relentless. Take care of your clients, but don’t forget to take care of yourself.

Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.

Topics

, , ,