Assume that you are representing a defendant doctor who used an inadequately tested medical procedure for relieving back pain. The doctor was sued by a single patient for damages (medical bills and pain and suffering) for $5 million. The patient has no interests other than securing compensation. Although the doctor was confident that the procedure would have had greater success, he now realizes that for a not insignificant number of patients, conditions were made worst by the procedure despite a number of wildly successful outcomes. The patients were never advised of the experimental nature of the procedure and were instead told that the procedure has been quite successful in relieving back pain, which is true. The doctor is worried that many other potential plaintiffs may appear, and he wants you to settle this case as quickly as possible. You realize that the pain and suffering is significant, and based on prior jury verdicts, you conclude that your client should not pay more than $4 million so long as the settlement includes a confidentiality clause. You aspire to settle for $2 million.

Qs:Suppose you know your dispute is primarily distributive, and you have a legally weak case. How would you approach the dance of concessions, and what music would you play? What are the risks of your strategy?