Maybe you do not like the sound of “agreeing to disagree.”  It may be too soft for you and not protective enough of your turf.  Maybe you always want to have people know exactly where you stand on everything and be prepared to do battle if your way is not the highway.

Well, that is certainly one way of behaving.  But, it often is not the most effective one and sacrifices too much.  I was reminded of this last weekend when I heard the sad news about the death of Justice Scalia.  I remembered his well-publicized friendship with Justice Ginsburg.  They were two people at the polar opposites of legal theory and interpretation, but they enjoyed each other’s company, attended the opera side by side, and laughed a lot together.  From all accounts, it was an unlikely but rather beautiful friendship.  My best guess is that they both had to agree to disagree a lot, and it was well worth it.

Agreeing to disagree can be a powerful negotiation tool.  When things get heated and positions are becoming too entrenched, it is often time to step back and reassess.  Ask yourself whether it is worth it to embarrass and infuriate the opposition or whether something less will accomplish more.  No one ever taught me this in law school, but I remember the power of it as if it happened just yesterday.

On that day, so many yesterdays ago, I found myself on the opposite side of a senior lawyer, who had been one of my revered mentors at my first law firm.  This time, however, he was railing at me over the phone and reminding me that he had “taught me better” than to be taking certain positions, and I was tempted to fire back at him in kind.  But, I could not.  He truly had taught me so much, and he had trusted me with valuable trial experience very early in my career.  I knew that he deserved to be treated like the elder wise man that he was — even if he was yelling at me!  So, without understanding exactly where it came from, I told him that he and I would have to “agree to disagree.”  I was not sure that he had heard me through his indignant diatribe, so I repeated it.

Silence.  That is what I heard next.  I had disarmed him with such unpredictable but firm and effective language.  How do you argue against agreeing to disagree?  And why would you want to?

Recently when I was speaking to a law school audience, a young woman asked me if it was true that women are too nice to be trial lawyers.  My response was exactly what you would expect.  Absolutely not.  Being nice and being a tough opponent are not mutually exclusive, and women should use their inherent charm and intuition to combine the two for a winning outcome.  It is a very effective strategy.

That is what agreeing to disagree is all about.  So, the next time that you feel boxed in, try it and live to fight another round before anger and contempt take over. 

Every fighter gets sent to his or her corner for a reason.  I suspect that Justices Scalia and Ginsburg understood that.