Litigation involves two simultaneous games of an iterated prisoner's dilemma, one between the parties, and the other between their attorneys. Even once we are in litigation, we are still in a prisoner's dilemma. First, litigation is not entirely zero-sum; we may settle on some mutually acceptable, even beneficial middle ground. Also, there are numerous other opportunities for cooperation or betrayal in the course of a lawsuit: opportunities to clarify or muddy, advance or delay, exchange or withhold documents, and so forth.

In these types situations, would a person:

• be better off cooperating?
• be better off competing?
• Does this choice raise any ethical considerations? If so, please explain?
• In the book Getting to Yes, the authors view negotiating differently than the Prisoner's Dilemma. Do you think that the Getting to Yes approach or some other approach would be more or less effective?