4 Legal English Podcast | Episode 097
On the docket today, we look at how lawyers can communicate clearly during virtual negotiations in English. Online negotiations create some unusual communication risks: people speak at the same time, audio cuts out, silence can be misinterpreted, and apparently positive phrases such as “that could work” may not actually mean agreement.
For international lawyers, the challenge is not to use more complicated English. It is to use precise, structured language that makes your position—and the status of the negotiation—easy to understand.
You can listen to the 4 Legal English Podcast here, or anywhere where you can find podcasts!
Subscribe to the 4 Legal English Podcast
Make Complicated Legal Ideas Easier to Follow
Legal issues can be complex, but spoken sentences do not need to be.
Instead of putting your position, reasoning, qualifications, and proposal into one long sentence, separate them:
“Our client cannot accept unlimited liability. Our concern is that the potential exposure would be disproportionate to the value of the contract. We would be willing to discuss a reasonable cap.”
The listener can immediately identify three things: the position, the reason, and the possible solution.
Signposting also helps. Phrases such as “There are two issues we need to address,” “Our main concern is…,” and “From a legal perspective…” tell listeners how your explanation is organized.
In international negotiations, clear is usually better than clever. Idioms such as cut to the chase, deal breaker, or on the same page may be familiar to native speakers but can introduce unnecessary uncertainty.
Do Not Guess What Silence or Vague Language Means
Virtual meetings make silence particularly difficult to interpret. Someone may be considering your proposal, consulting privately with a client, experiencing a technical problem—or simply thinking.
Do not assume silence means agreement.
Likewise, phrases such as “That sounds reasonable,” “I think that works,” or “We could consider that” may sound positive without communicating actual acceptance.
When the distinction matters, clarify it:
“Just to confirm, are you accepting that proposal?”
“Should we treat that issue as agreed?”
“Is this still subject to client approval?”
A few seconds spent confirming meaning can prevent a much larger disagreement later.
Distinguish Discussion from Agreement
Negotiators should distinguish carefully between a proposal, an offer, a counteroffer, and acceptance.
A proposal is a broad term for a suggested term or solution. Calling something a proposal does not itself determine whether it constitutes a legally effective offer. An offer is generally more definite and communicates terms on which a party is prepared to be bound if accepted. The precise legal consequences depend on the circumstances and applicable law.
Lawyers should also distinguish agreement on an individual issue from a final agreement. You might say:
“We are agreed on this point, but not yet on the agreement as a whole.”
Or:
“We can tentatively agree to this point, subject to agreement on the remaining terms.”
These qualifications are especially important when several negotiated terms form part of one overall package.
Use Virtual Tools Carefully
Technology can actually improve clarity when used deliberately.
Chat is useful for exact numbers, dates, names, and proposed wording. If someone says an important figure, asking them to put it in the chat can prevent mistakes.
Screen sharing allows everyone to look at the same clause or draft. But it also creates confidentiality risks. Before sharing, close unrelated documents, email, internal messages, client communications, and anything else the other side should not see. Whenever possible, share only the relevant document or application rather than your entire screen.
The ABA specifically warns that lawyers practicing virtually must continue to protect confidential client information and take reasonable precautions against inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure.
Confirm the Result in Writing
One of the most valuable habits after a virtual negotiation is a short written summary.
Identify:
- what was agreed;
- what remains open;
- any conditions or required approvals;
- who will take the next step; and
- any relevant deadlines.
Useful language includes:
“My understanding from today’s call is…”
“The proposed settlement amount remains subject to final client approval.”
“Please let me know if your understanding differs.”
The goal is not to reproduce the entire negotiation. It is to create a clear record of where matters stand.
Practical Takeaway
Successful virtual negotiations in English depend less on sophisticated vocabulary than on disciplined communication. Use shorter sentences, organize your ideas, clarify vague responses, distinguish tentative discussions from agreement, and confirm important results in writing.
When the legal consequences matter, do not guess what the other person meant. Ask.
Lexicon
Enhance your Legal English proficiency with our lexicon section. Here is a list of essential terms and phrases encountered in each episode to aid ESL learners and legal professionals in mastering the intricacies of legal language. These lexicon entries provide a valuable resource for building a strong foundation in Legal English.
Acceptance
Agreement to an offer. In a negotiation, lawyers should distinguish clearly between discussing a proposal and actually accepting it.
Example: “Before treating the issue as resolved, counsel asked for clear acceptance of the proposed payment term.”
Agree in principle
To agree generally on the main idea or terms while recognizing that details, approval, or documentation may still remain.
Example: “The parties agreed in principle on the settlement amount, subject to final documentation.”
Binding agreement
An agreement that creates legal obligations that the parties may be required to follow.
Example: “Counsel clarified that the discussion was preliminary and was not intended to create a binding agreement.”
Conditional
Dependent on another event, requirement, or term being satisfied.
Example: “The company’s acceptance of the payment schedule was conditional on agreement to the revised security provision.”
Counteroffer
A new offer made in response to an earlier offer.
Example: “The defendant rejected the $50,000 settlement offer and made a counteroffer of $35,000.”
Draft language
Proposed wording for a contract, settlement agreement, or other legal document that is not yet final.
Example: “The lawyer placed the draft language in the chat so both sides could review the wording.”
In its current form
A phrase used to refer to a provision or proposal exactly as it presently exists, while leaving open the possibility of revision.
Example: “Our client cannot accept the limitation of liability clause in its current form.”
Instructions from the client
The client’s directions or authorization telling the lawyer how to proceed in a legal matter or negotiation.
Example: “I need further instructions from the client before responding to your settlement proposal.”
Non-binding proposal
A proposal offered for discussion that is not intended by itself to create final legal obligations.
Example: “For discussion purposes, we are making a non-binding proposal for a revised payment schedule.”
Proposal
A suggested term, solution, or possible agreement. A proposal may be exploratory and is not necessarily a formal offer.
Example: “The parties discussed a proposal to extend the payment deadline by 30 days.”
Subject to client approval
A phrase indicating that a proposed term or agreement cannot become final until the client approves it.
Example: “We can agree in principle, but the settlement remains subject to client approval.”
Written follow-up
Written communication after a meeting or negotiation confirming what was agreed, what remains unresolved, and what happens next.
Example: “Counsel sent a written follow-up identifying the agreed points, open issues, and deadline for revised wording.”
Episode Transcript
Introduction: Why Clear Communication Matters in Virtual Negotiations
Have you ever been in an online negotiation where two people started speaking at exactly the same time? Both stopped. Both said, “Sorry, go ahead.” Then both started speaking again.
This is awkward. But in legal negotiation, the bigger problem is not awkwardness. The bigger problem is misunderstanding. Maybe the audio cuts out just as opposing counsel states an important condition or a number, a figure. Maybe someone says, “That could work,” but you do not know whether they are accepting a proposal or are simply agreeing to discuss it further. Maybe there’s a long silence after you make an offer. Does the silence mean they disagree? Are they considering it? Or are they talking privately with their client? Or did their internet freeze?
Virtual negotiations create communication problems that lawyers do not always face in exactly the same way when everyone is sitting around the same table. And when the negotiation is happening in English, especially when some or all of the participants are not native English speakers, clarity becomes even more important.
On the docket today, we’re continuing our discussion of Legal English for virtual negotiations. But today we’re moving inside the negotiation itself. We’re going to look at how lawyers can speak more clearly, manage interruptions and silence, clarify exactly what the other side means, and avoid turning a communication problem into a legal problem. Because in negotiation, it’s not enough to know what you want to say. You also need to make sure everyone else understands what you actually said.
Greetings, colleagues, and welcome to the 4 Legal English Podcast, where legal professionals around the world improve their Legal English and communicate with more clarity and confidence. I’m your host, Timothy Barrett. On the docket today: virtual negotiations in English — clear communication for lawyers.
News from 4 Legal English
Colleagues, before we continue, I want to tell you about a couple of new things coming to 4 Legal English. Reaching 100 episodes of this podcast has made me think quite a bit about where we go from here, and about different ways I can make the podcast and 4 Legal English more useful to you.
So over the next few months, I’m going to try a couple of new things. The first is something called 4 Legal English in 4 Minutes. These will be very short episodes, about four minutes, focused on one useful Legal English word, phrase, distinction, or communication skill.
The idea is not to replace our regular episodes. Those will continue. Instead, on some of the weeks between the longer episodes, you’ll get a quick Legal English lesson that you can listen to in just a few minutes.
For now, this is an experiment. I’m going to try it for two or three months and see how it works. So if you enjoy the 4 Legal English in 4 Minutes episodes, or if there are particular topics you’d like me to cover, please let me know. Your feedback will help me decide whether this becomes a regular part of the podcast.
I’m also planning three free 4 Legal English webinars starting in October. These will give us an opportunity to go deeper into some practical Legal English skills in a live format. The first webinar will be Better Legal Emails: How to Sound Clear, Professional, and Confident. I will share more information about that webinar and the other two as we get closer.
After 100 episodes, I certainly do not want to change what has been working. But I do want to keep looking for better ways to help international lawyers and law students around the world improve their Legal English. So think of the next few months as a little experimentation here at 4 Legal English: more full episodes, some very short ones, and some live webinars. I hope you’ll join me for all three.
Today’s Focus: Communication During the Negotiation
Greetings, colleagues, and welcome back to the 4 Legal English Podcast. On the docket today, we’re talking about communication during virtual legal negotiations.
In a previous episode, we looked at preparing for an online negotiation and opening the meeting professionally. We discussed your client’s position, your fallback position, your authority, the agenda, the documents, and how to give the beginning of the meeting some structure. If you have not heard that episode, it’s perfectly fine. Today’s episode stands on its own.
Our focus today is what happens after the negotiation is underway. Because once people begin making proposals, challenging clauses, asking questions, interrupting each other, and responding under pressure, communication becomes more difficult. And online, there’s another layer of difficulty.
You may have weaker visual cues. You’re not able to use body language quite as much. There may be a delay in the audio. The audio might even cut in and out. Several people may be speaking from different locations. Someone may be checking a document on another screen. A client may be sending private messages to the lawyer while the lawyer is trying to listen to opposing counsel. And of course, people may be negotiating in a language that’s not their first language.
This means lawyers need to communicate deliberately: not slowly for the sake of speaking slowly, not artificially, and not with overly simple English. That may just confuse things even further. The goal is professional clarity.
You want the other side to understand: What is your position? What are you proposing? What are you rejecting? What are you willing to consider? What has been agreed and what has not been agreed? That distinction becomes very important as the negotiation develops.
Later in the episode, we’ll focus specifically on offers, counteroffers, acceptance, authority, and written confirmation. But first, we need to begin with something even more basic. How do you make your English easier to follow during a difficult negotiation?
Speaking Clearly: Short Sentences, Signposting, and Summaries
Lawyers often speak in complicated sentences. There’s a reason for that. Legal questions can be complicated. We want to be precise. We want to include qualifications. We want to explain exceptions. And sometimes we’re trying to protect ourselves from saying something too definite.
But there is a danger. A sentence can become legally precise and verbally impossible to follow. That problem becomes worse online.
Imagine saying: “Although our client is prepared to consider the proposed revision, we remain concerned that the language as currently drafted may result in an allocation of liability that is inconsistent with the commercial understanding previously discussed between the parties.”
That may be perfectly understandable on paper, or maybe not. But imagine hearing it through a poor internet connection while you’re also looking at the contract, trying to take notes. It’s a lot to process.
You could communicate essentially the same idea like this: “Our client is prepared to consider the revision. However, we still have a concern about liability. The current wording does not reflect the commercial understanding we discussed earlier.”
Same basic message, much easier to follow. This is one of the most useful communication habits in virtual negotiations. Break one complicated idea into several shorter sentences. Short sentences do not make you sound less sophisticated. If anything, they often make you sound more confident. You know what your point is. You state it. Then you move to the next point.
This is especially useful when you disagree. Suppose the other side proposes unlimited liability. Instead of giving a long explanation immediately, begin with the core position: “Our client cannot accept unlimited liability.” Then explain why: “Our concern is that the potential exposure would be disproportionate to the value of the contract.” Then, if appropriate, make a proposal: “We’d be willing to discuss a reasonable cap.”
Now the listener can clearly identify three things: your position, your reason, and your possible solution. That structure is extremely useful in negotiation.
Another useful technique is signposting. Signposting means telling the listener how your answer is organized. For example: “There are two issues we need to address. First, the payment schedule. Second, the confidentiality provision.”
Or you might say: “I see this both as a legal issue and a commercial issue. From a legal perspective, the wording may be acceptable, but from a commercial perspective, our client still has concerns.”
These phrases help the listener understand where you’re going. That becomes particularly useful when several people are participating. Without signposting, a long explanation can sound like one continuous block of information. With signposting, the listener hears the structure.
Another useful phrase is, “The main issue for our client is…” or “Our main concern is…” or “There are two points we can accept and one point we cannot accept.” Then explain them. These phrases make negotiations easier to follow. They can also help you sound less emotional.
Imagine a difficult clause. You could say, “This clause is completely unreasonable.” Maybe that’s how you feel, but it probably doesn’t help the negotiation. Compare: “Our concern is that the clause creates potentially unlimited liability.” That sentence identifies a problem without attacking the other side.
Similarly, instead of “We’ll never agree to this,” you might say, “Our client cannot accept this provision in its current form.” Notice the phrase “in its current form.” That phrase leaves the door open. You’re rejecting the current wording. You are not necessarily saying the negotiation is impossible. That distinction can be very useful. You can say, “We cannot accept this wording, but we are willing to consider an alternative.” Now you have clearly separated rejection from willingness to continue negotiating.
Another important skill is summarizing. In a long negotiation, do not wait until the very end before checking whether everyone has the same understanding. Summarize as you go. For example: “Let me summarize where we are. We have agreed on the payment schedule. The confidentiality language is also acceptable. Limitation of liability remains open.”
That only takes a few seconds, but it can prevent 20 minutes of later confusion. You can also summarize your own position: “Let me make sure our position is clear. We can accept the revised deadline, we cannot accept unlimited liability, and we need to review the indemnity language with our client.” Again, short, structured, easy to follow.
Summaries are particularly useful when moving from one issue to another. For example: “So unless anyone has a different understanding, payment is agreed and liability remains open. Shall we move to confidentiality?”
That sentence does two things. It checks your understanding, and it gives the other side an opportunity to correct you. This is important because you should never assume that everyone understood the discussion exactly the same way that you did.
Now, one more point about clear English. Be careful with idioms. Native speakers may use phrases like “let’s cut to the chase,” “that’s a deal breaker,” “let’s put our cards on the table,” and “we’re on the same page.” You should understand these phrases. But in an international negotiation, they may not always be the best phrases to use.
If clarity matters, simpler alternatives are often better. Instead of “let’s cut to the chase,” say, “Let us focus on the main issue.” Instead of “this is a deal breaker,” say, “That issue is essential for our client.” Instead of “are we on the same page?” say, “Do we have the same understanding?”
The goal is not to eliminate natural English. The goal is to recognize when an idiom adds personality and when it adds unnecessary uncertainty. In an international legal negotiation, clear is usually better than clever.
So the main issues from this section are simple. Use shorter sentences when the idea is complicated. Use signposting to organize your thoughts. Separate your position, your reason, and your proposal. Summarize important points as the negotiation develops. And choose language that helps the other side understand you immediately.
Good negotiation language does not need to attract attention to itself. It needs to make your position clear.
Managing Interruptions, Silence, and Delays
Now let’s move to one of the most frustrating parts of virtual negotiation: timing.
When people are sitting in the same room, they usually receive many small signals about when someone is going to speak. Someone takes a breath, they lean forward, they raise their hand slightly, they make eye contact. Online, many of those signals disappear. And even a small delay in the connection can cause two people to begin speaking at exactly the same time.
This happens constantly. Usually it’s not rude; it’s technology. So you need language that allows you to manage the interruption without creating unnecessary tension.
One of the easiest phrases is: “Sorry, I think we spoke at the same time. Please go ahead.” Or: “Sorry, there may be a slight delay. Please continue.” These phrases make clear that you are not fighting for control of the conversation. You’re recognizing a technical problem.
You can also make your own speaking turns clearer. For example: “I will pause here.” This is a surprisingly useful phrase. Imagine you have just explained your objection to a clause: “Our concern is that the current language may expose our client to unlimited liability. We would prefer a reasonable cap based on the value of the agreement. I’ll pause there.”
Now the other side knows that you have finished your point. You have created an obvious space for a response. This is especially helpful if you tend to continue speaking when you are nervous. Many people do this when negotiating, even in their native language, let alone another language. They’re afraid that if they stop, someone will interrupt them. But sometimes the opposite is better. Make your point. Stop. Let the other side respond.
Silence is also important. And silence becomes particularly difficult online. Imagine that you say, “Our client could settle the matter for $50,000.” Then nobody says anything. Five seconds pass.
What does that silence mean? Perhaps they dislike the offer. Perhaps they are considering it. Perhaps the lawyer is reading a private message from the client. Perhaps someone muted their microphone. Perhaps their connection froze. You don’t know.
So do not automatically interpret silence. And particularly, do not interpret silence as agreement. If you need clarification, ask. You might say, “Would you like a moment to consider that?” Or, “Would it be helpful if I clarified the proposal?” Or, if you believe the parties may actually have reached agreement, “To confirm, is that point agreed?”
Notice the difference. You’re not guessing; you’re asking. That habit becomes extremely important when offers and counteroffers are being discussed. We’ll look at that more closely later in the episode.
Technical problems create another danger. Sometimes lawyers pretend they heard something because they do not want to interrupt. Do not do that. If you do not hear the sentence, say so. You can say: “Could you repeat that last sentence? The audio cut out.” Or: “I missed part of that. Could you repeat the point about the deadline?” Or: “Could you say the amount again?” When numbers are particularly important: “Could you put that figure in the chat?”
That can be very useful with numbers such as 15 and 50, 13 and 30, or dates and percentages. There’s nothing unprofessional about asking someone to repeat an important point.
Generally, when I teach all of my students, I’ll emphasize this. When they speak, a lot of times people will go kind of loud on some words and silent on others. But there are some words you have to be loud and clear on, such as numbers or maybe your name.
If you say, “Hey, my name is…” and “I’m from…,” I can understand “Hello, my name is,” but your name, I can’t figure out from context. If I don’t know who you are, if you say, “I’m from whatever,” and I can’t hear that, I can’t make that up. If I miss the “I’m from,” but I hear the “whatever,” then I can kind of figure out, “Oh, that must be where you are from. That’s your country, your company, your law firm, whatever.” I can figure that out.
But when that detail or when that number is the blank part that I didn’t quite hear, that makes the conversation impossible. So there are certain words, such as your name or company name, law firm name, or numbers, that you have to be very clear on. And in fact, I might even encourage you to over-enunciate; make those numbers very clear.
Now, there’s also another kind of pressure that lawyers often experience: the pressure to answer immediately. The other side makes a proposal, everyone looks at you, and you feel like you need to say something immediately. You do not.
Sometimes the best answer is, “I’d like a moment to consider that.” Or: “We need to discuss that internally before responding.” Or: “I don’t want to answer too quickly on that point.” Or simply: “We should review the wording before giving you a final response.”
These are useful, professional phrases. They do not make you sound uncertain. They show that you understand the importance of the question. A lawyer should not give an immediate answer simply because silence feels uncomfortable. Sometimes you need 20 seconds. Sometimes you need to speak privately with the client. Sometimes you need to review a document. Sometimes you need to sleep on it.
You can say, “We’ll get back to you tomorrow on that.” For example: “I would like to discuss that privately with my client. Could we come back to it in a few minutes?” Or: “Can we come back to it in a few days?” Or: “We’re not in a position to respond to that today. We’ll review it and come back to you in writing.”
Again, clear. No unnecessary explanation, no accidental commitment.
So when you’re dealing with interruptions, silence, and delays, remember: do not treat every interruption as rude; do not assume that silence means agreement; do not pretend you heard something when you did not; and do not be afraid to finish your point politely. In a virtual negotiation, that calm, deliberate communication can prevent small problems from becoming serious misunderstandings.
Clarifying Offers, Counteroffers, Agreement, and Authority
Now we come to one of the most important parts of any negotiation: understanding exactly what the other side has said.
This sounds obvious, but negotiation language is often deliberately cautious. People say, “That may work.” “We could consider that.” “Sounds reasonable.” “I think we are close.” “That should be acceptable.” These phrases may sound positive, but they do not all mean the same thing, and they certainly do not always mean “we agree.”
That distinction is especially important in a virtual negotiation. The audio may be imperfect. Several people may be involved. And a short response, such as “yes,” may be answering one question while another participant thinks it means something entirely different. So when the legal significance matters, do not rely on vague language. Clarify it.
Let us begin with four important concepts: a proposal, an offer, a counteroffer, and acceptance.
A proposal is a broad term for a suggested term, solution, or possible agreement. For example: “We would be willing to consider payment over six months.” Here the lawyer may simply be suggesting an idea for further discussion. But be careful: the word “proposal” does not tell us by itself whether something is legally an offer. That depends on the language, the context, and the applicable law.
An offer in contract law has a more specific meaning. Generally, an offer communicates terms on which a party is prepared to be bound if the other party accepts. For example: “Our client offers to settle the matter for $50,000.” That sounds much more definite.
The important point for a negotiation is this: not every suggestion or proposal is an offer that can simply be accepted to create an agreement. So if the other side’s language is unclear, ask, “Is that a formal offer, or are you proposing this for discussion?”
A counteroffer is a new offer in response to an earlier offer. For example: “Your client has offered $50,000. Our client would settle for $75,000.” And acceptance means agreeing to the offer. That seems straightforward, but real negotiations are not often straightforward.
Suppose one lawyer says, “We could agree to payment within 60 days.” The other lawyer responds, “Yes, that sounds reasonable.” Have the parties agreed? Maybe. But perhaps the lawyer means, “Yes, I understand why you’re proposing 60 days,” or “Yes, I think my client may accept that,” or “Yes, subject to some other changes in the agreement.” These are very different things.
So if the point matters, confirm it. You might say, “Just to confirm, are you accepting the 60-day payment term?” Or: “To confirm, should we mark the payment term as agreed?” Or: “Are you agreeing to that wording, or would you still like to discuss it?”
These are useful questions because they remove ambiguity. You’re not being difficult. You’re making sure both sides have the same understanding.
There is another important distinction. Agreement on one point does not necessarily mean agreement on the entire deal. Imagine the parties are negotiating four issues: payment, confidentiality, limitation of liability, and governing law. They may agree on payment while the other three issues remain unresolved.
So you might say, “Can we confirm that payment is agreed while the other issues remain open?” Or: “My understanding is that we have agreed on the payment schedule only.” Or: “We are agreed on this point, but not yet on the agreement as a whole.”
That last sentence can be very important. Negotiations often develop issue by issue. You want to distinguish between “we agree on this clause” and “we have a final agreement.” Those are not necessarily the same thing.
Now let’s consider another common situation. The other side says, “I think we can live with that.” What does that mean? It sounds informal. It probably means the proposal is acceptable. But does that mean they accept it? If the point is legally important, you may still want clearer language. You can say, “Just so I’m clear, are you accepting that proposal?” Or: “Can we treat that issue as agreed?”
Another phrase you might hear is, “I think that works.” Again, it sounds positive, but do not automatically convert informal language into a formal agreement in your own mind. Confirm it.
Now let us move to authority. Even if the lawyer on the other side appears to agree, that person may not have authority to make the agreement final. We discussed authority in our previous episode, so we do not need to repeat the entire concept here. But the practical point during the negotiation is this: do not confuse willingness to recommend a proposal with authority to accept it.
For example, opposing counsel might say, “I think my client will accept that.” That’s not the same as “My client accepts that,” or “I have authority to accept that on behalf of my client.” So if you need clarification, ask, “Is this subject to client approval, or do you have authority to agree on that today?” Or: “Should we treat that as agreed, or do you still need instructions from your client?”
The phrase “instructions from your client” is common in legal practice. It means the lawyer needs the client’s decision or authorization before taking the next step.
You may also need to clarify your own authority. Suppose the other lawyer says, “So we agree on 60 days?” You might respond, “We are prepared to recommend 60 days to our client, but we do not have the authority to accept that term today.”
Notice the distinction. You’re not rejecting the proposal. You’re saying this may be acceptable, but the decision is not yours to make.
Another useful phrase is, “That would be subject to client approval,” or “We can agree in principle subject to final client approval.”
Now be careful with the phrase “in principle.” If parties agree in principle, they have generally agreed on the basic idea, but details or formal approval may still remain. For example: “We have agreed in principle on the settlement amount subject to final documentation.” That means the main agreement may be settled, but the full agreement has not necessarily been completed.
So if someone says, “We are agreed in principle,” you may want to ask what remains outstanding or which points still need to be finalized. That helps identify whether the parties really are close to agreement.
Now let us discuss another important distinction: binding and non-binding. A binding agreement creates legal obligations. A non-binding proposal does not. During negotiations, lawyers sometimes need to make clear that they are exploring a possible solution rather than creating a final commitment.
You might say, “This is a non-binding proposal for discussion purposes.” Or: “For discussion purposes only, our client may consider extending the payment period.” That signals: we’re putting an idea on the table. We’re not yet making a final commitment.
This kind of language can be particularly useful when brainstorming possible solutions. Suppose one side says, “What if we extend payment to 90 days but increase the deposit?” You might respond, “For discussion purposes, that may be something our client would consider.” Again, that’s not acceptance. It’s permission to continue exploring the idea.
Now compare that with, “Yes, we agree to 90 days with the increased deposit.” That is much more definite. The difference between those sentences matters.
Another useful phrase is “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.” You may hear lawyers use language like this when several terms are being negotiated as part of one package. The idea is that the tentative agreement on individual points should not necessarily be treated as the final agreement until the entire package is complete.
Whether that principle has legal effect will depend on the circumstances and the applicable law. But as negotiation language, it communicates an important idea. Individual points may remain provisional until the whole deal is finished.
We could say, “We are making progress, but our understanding is that nothing is final until all outstanding issues are resolved.” Or: “We can tentatively agree to this point, subject to agreement on the remaining terms.” The word “tentatively” means provisionally, not finally. That can be very useful when issues are connected.
For example, your client might accept a longer payment period only if the other side accepts stronger security. Those terms form part of a package. So you do not want one concession separated from the condition that made it acceptable.
You might say, “Our willingness to accept the longer payment period depends on agreement on the security provision.” Or: “We could accept that term as part of the overall package, but not on a standalone basis.” This is sophisticated negotiation language, but the English itself is still clear.
Now let’s look at a practical example. Imagine the other lawyer says, “If your client can accept 60-day payment terms, I think we can resolve the confidentiality issue.” There are several things you need to clarify. You could say, “When you say we can resolve the confidentiality issue, do you mean you accept our proposed wording?”
The lawyer says, “Yes, assuming we agree on payment.” Now the relationship between the two issues is clear. You might respond, “Understood. So your acceptance of the confidentiality wording is conditional on agreement on the 60-day payment term.” The word “conditional” means dependent on something else happening. The lawyer says yes. Now you know much more than you knew from, “I think we can resolve it.”
This is the purpose of clarification. You’re turning general language into precise understanding.
Here’s another example. The other lawyer says, “That sounds acceptable.” You say, “To confirm, is your client accepting the proposal?” The lawyer responds, “I believe so, but I need final instructions.” Now you know that there is not yet final acceptance. You can respond, “Understood. We’ll treat the proposal as still subject to client approval.” It’s much safer than leaving the call believing the issue was settled.
Now consider the opposite situation. You make a proposal, the other side says, “No objection from us.” Again, clarify. “Can I confirm that you are accepting the proposed wording?” Do not rely on the absence of objection when clear agreement is important.
Another useful technique is to summarize the status of each issue. For example: “Let me make sure I have this correctly. Payment remains open. Confidentiality is agreed, subject to final documentation. Your client is considering the liability proposal, and governing law has not yet been discussed.” Then ask, “Is that also your understanding?”
That final question is very useful. It gives the other side an opportunity to correct the record immediately.
Now, sometimes there will be disagreement about what was said earlier. The other lawyer might say, “I thought we already agreed to that.” You can respond without becoming confrontational. For example: “My understanding was that we agreed to discuss it further, not that the term was final.” Or: “I understood that point to remain subject to client approval.” Or: “I may have understood you differently. Could we clarify exactly where we stand on that issue?” That’s much better than, “No, we never agreed on that.”
So when dealing with offers, counteroffers, and agreements, remember these distinctions. A proposal is not always an offer. An offer is not always accepted. Positive language does not always mean agreement. Agreement on one issue does not necessarily mean agreement on the entire deal. A lawyer may support a proposal without having authority to actually accept it. A tentative understanding may still be subject to client approval.
A few seconds of clarification during the call can prevent a much larger dispute afterward.
Using Chat, Screen Sharing, and Written Follow-Up
Now let’s turn to the technology itself. Virtual negotiation gives lawyers tools that can improve communication. But those same tools can also create new risks. The three most important are chat, screen sharing, and written follow-up.
Let’s begin with chat. The chat function can be extremely useful when a spoken detail might be misunderstood. For example, you can say, “I will put the proposed wording in the chat.” Or: “Could you put that figure in the chat?” Or: “I’ll type the deadline in the chat so we’re all clear.”
This is particularly useful with numbers, dates, names, and short pieces of proposed language, especially legal language. Imagine someone says 15%, another person hears 50%. That’s not a small misunderstanding. Putting the number in the chat can solve that problem immediately. The same is true with dates. Instead of relying only on “next Friday,” you might put the exact date in the chat. That removes ambiguity.
Chat can also help when discussing a specific clause. For example, “I’ll put the proposed wording in the chat so everyone can see it.” That may be faster than repeating a complicated sentence several times. But that creates an important risk. It creates a written record. A casual comment that disappears from the spoken conversation may remain in the meeting transcript, chat history, screenshot, or saved file.
So write professionally. Do not treat the chat like a private conversation unless you are absolutely certain that it is private. And even then, be careful.
Now let us move to screen sharing. Screen sharing can be one of the most useful tools in a virtual negotiation. Legal negotiations, after all, can often turn on exact wording. One word may matter, one sentence may matter, one defined term may make the difference.
Instead of discussing a clause from memory, put the text on the screen. You can say, “Could we look at section 8.2 together?” Or: “Could you share the limitation of liability clause?” Or: “The issue for us is in the second sentence.” This helps everyone focus on the same language.
Suppose the parties are discussing whether a contract says the supplier shall provide notice or the supplier may provide notice. Those words are not equivalent. Looking at the clause together can prevent the parties from debating two different versions of the text, which obviously is a waste of time.
You can also use screen sharing to review proposed revisions, but screen sharing also creates one of the clearest technology risks in legal practice: accidental disclosure.
Your screen may contain much more than the document you intend to show. You may have an email from your client, internal legal notes, a private chat with a colleague, another client’s document, or privileged communications. Imagine while you’re sharing your screen, you get an instant message or an email notification about a confidential matter. Maybe it’s even unrelated to the case that you’re discussing. You still breach confidentiality. You have to be very careful.
So before sharing your screen, prepare it. Close unrelated documents, close email, close internal messaging windows, close confidential notes. And whenever possible, share only the specific application or document you need. So you’re not sharing your entire screen, just that Word document or that PDF or something like that. This is a simple technical precaution, but it can prevent a serious mistake.
And also pay attention to which version of the document you are showing. Negotiations can involve several drafts. You have the original, revised, internal redline, the other side’s redline. There may be several versions out there. If there’s any doubt, identify it.
Now let’s move to perhaps the most important part of the virtual negotiation: what happens after the call. Written follow-up.
A virtual meeting can feel clear when it is happening. Then everyone closes the laptop and suddenly the interpretations begin to separate. One person remembers, “We agreed to 60 days.” Another remembers, “We said we would consider 60 days.” One person thinks the confidentiality clause is final; another thinks it remains subject to client approval. One person thinks revised wording is due Friday; another thinks it’s due the following Monday.
This is why important points should be confirmed in writing. The follow-up does not have to be long. In many cases, it should be short. A useful written summary can identify four things: what was agreed, what remains open, what each side needs to do, and when it needs to happen.
For example: “Thank you for today’s call. To confirm, the parties agree on the payment schedule and confidentiality language. Limitation of liability remains open. Our side will circulate revised wording by Friday, and your side will review the proposed release language.”
That’s already very useful. It tells everyone where the negotiation stands.
We can make the structure even clearer: agreed points — payment schedule, confidentiality; open issues — limitation of liability and release language; next step — our side will circulate revised wording by Friday. Now the reader does not have to search through a long email to understand the result. This is especially useful when many issues were discussed.
Another good phrase is, “My understanding from today’s call is…” For example: “My understanding from today’s call is the payment issue is agreed subject to final documentation.” Your wording gives the other side an opportunity to correct your understanding. You can also say, “Please let me know if your understanding differs.” This is a useful sentence. It communicates: this is the record as we currently understand it. If you disagree, tell us now.
Written follow-up is also important when no final agreement was reached. For example: “Thank you for the discussion today. No final agreement was reached. The parties will continue to consider the proposed payment schedule and liability language.” That may be safer than leaving the status unclear.
Similarly, if a point remains subject to approval, say so. For example: “The proposed settlement amount remains subject to final client approval.” Or: “The parties discussed possible wording, but no final language was agreed.” Or: “Our client will review the proposal and respond by Wednesday.” These sentences distinguish discussion from agreement. This is exactly what good legal follow-up should do.
Now sometimes lawyers are tempted to write an extremely detailed email after a negotiation. Be careful. The goal is usually not to reproduce every sentence from the call. The goal is to confirm the important result. If you write a 10-page summary of a 40-minute negotiation, you may create more disagreement rather than less.
Focus on agreed terms, unresolved issues, conditions, deadlines, and next steps. Keep it accurate, keep it neutral, and make clear what is final and what is not.
Conclusion: Clear Language Prevents Legal Misunderstandings
Let’s bring this episode together. Virtual negotiation can create problems that have very little to do with the underlying legal issue. A delay can create an interruption. Silence can be misunderstood. A vague phrase can sound like agreement. A lawyer can support a proposal without having authority to accept it. A chat message can create a written record. And a screen share can reveal information that was never meant for the other side.
None of those problems require complicated Legal English to solve. In fact, the opposite is actually true. Clear language is the solution. Use short sentences. Tell the listener how your explanation is organized. Summarize where the negotiation stands. If you do not hear something, ask the speaker to repeat it. If you need time, take it. If someone says, “That sounds acceptable,” do not guess what they mean. Ask to confirm: “Are you accepting that proposal?”
If you missed our previous episode on virtual negotiations, you can also listen to that episode for a discussion of preparation, strategy, authority, agendas, and how to open the meeting professionally. Check it out. Together, the two episodes take you from preparing a virtual negotiation through managing the discussion and confirming the result afterward.
If you’d like more Legal English resources connected to this episode, visit forlegalenglish.com, and you can see the episode guide for this episode. Also check out 4 Legal English for other blog articles and courses designed for international lawyers and law students to improve their Legal English.
If you know a colleague who negotiates in English, especially online, consider sending them this episode. I’d really appreciate that.
As always, check out the episode guide for the lexicon from today’s episode. Thank you for listening to the 4 Legal English Podcast.
4 Legal English Podcast
Are there any terms from the podcast you would like further explained? Comment below!
Please subscribe, rate us 5 stars, and leave a review!
