Computer-based negotiation support systems, which date back to the 1980s, are used to organize information, suggest reservation levels, gauge concessions and compromises, and evaluate offers.

Examples of such programs include the following:

1.) Adjusted Winner: Assists separating couples faced with dividing their assets separate items based on the values they assign to each piece.

2.) Cybersettle: Developed by two former trial attorneys for resolving insurance claims and credited with settling some $1.9 billion in medical billing and municipalities disputes. Here’s how it works: A healthcare provider posts demands and Cybersettle solicits counteroffers from the patient. If the patient’s offer equals or exceeds the healthcare provider’s demand, the case settles. If the two monetary figures are close, Cybersettle recommends an amount both parties can accept or reject. If no settlement is reached, the parties may use a “telephone facilitator” to help negotiate an agreement.

3.) Smartsettle: Ernest Thiessen used game theory to develop the Interactive Computer-Assisted Negotiation Support System (ICANS) today known as Smartsettle ONE™ and Smartsettle Infinity™. In Smartsettle,™ negotiators communicate via a secure neutral server on the Internet that acts as a mediator using sophisticated algorithms to suggest efficient outcomes. The negotiators may interact entirely online or face-to-face as well if they so choose.

4.) Chatbot: Walmart has taken negotiation support systems to the next level using chatbot as a negotiator tool. In a three-month pilot program in Canada, the company tested the program with 89 suppliers of goods used in its stores. Among Walmart’s issues in the negotiations were improvements to payment schedules in exchange for concessions on Walmart’s standard right to terminate clause. Walmart also authorized the chatbot to offer future opportunities in exchange for price discounts. The chatbot closed deals with 64% of the suppliers in an average of 11 days for an average 1.5% cost savings. After the pilot study, a survey of the suppliers showed that 83% were favorable with the new negotiation process.

Augmented systems are here to stay and most negotiators and mediators don’t see the technology as a replacement, but as a supplement to human communication skills.

I continue to get more inquiries about animal companions in mediation.

One example is a person who entered a relationship with a man who owned a dog before they met. Over the years, she and the dog became close and the pet had much less interaction with the boyfriend. As their relationship was coming to an end, she was worried about what would happen to the dog.

State laws do vary, of course, but in most states laws require that courts divide all community property, including companion animals, equally. Companion animals are considered no different than tangible property like furniture.

Some states, such as Alaska and Illinois, have adopted new laws to address this issue with California not far behind in 2018. Since then New Hampshire, Maine and New York have also passed new laws. Delaware and Rhode Island are considering to do the same.

California’s AB2274 empowered courts to consider “the care of the pet animal” in cases of divorce or legal separation. The new law made it possible for courts to create shared custody agreements. The bill’s original language was stronger, requiring courts to address the well-being of the companion animal. The final language was that courts “may” address the issue.

In effect the laws make it possible for the courts to enforce custody and visitation arrangements similar to ones for young children. The laws change the focus from ownership of tangible property to what is in the best interest of the companion animal. In these states the courts no longer award the pet to one party. Instead, they can arrange a custody and visitation schedule.

In states with new laws, separating partners may include their animal companion’s custody and care as part of their mediation along with other issues. In states without similar laws, there is nothing that prevents parties from using the same approach during mediation if both parties are willing to do so.