Negotiation strategy often turns on a difficult legal and professional tension: lawyers are expected to advocate forcefully for clients, but the tactics that shape leverage in the room can also reflect gender bias, unequal access to opportunity, and workplace dynamics that affect who becomes a lead negotiator in the first place. The issue matters because bias in negotiations can influence deal outcomes, client relationships, staffing decisions, promotion, retention, and the professional obligations of lawyers and law firms. In this CLE talk, recorded in 2019, Terri Adler, Managing Partner at Adler & Stachenfeld, draws on her experience as a senior deal lawyer and firm leader to examine how gender affects high-powered negotiations and what lawyers can do when bias appears across the table, from clients, or inside their own institutions.
A central issue is the structural bias that shapes who receives opportunities to lead. Under anti-discrimination principles, including Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment, decisions about staffing, advancement, leave, and client access cannot rest on stereotypes about gender, caregiving, toughness, or commitment. Adler explains that these questions often arise less through explicit exclusion than through assumptions: that a woman returning from leave may be less committed, that a reduced-hours lawyer no longer cares about advancement, or that the most important deal should go to someone who fits the traditional mold of a senior rainmaker. Her view is that firms must treat flexibility and family responsibilities as management issues rather than proxies for ambition, while also recognizing that retention of trained lawyers is a business imperative, not merely a diversity goal.
The discussion also focuses on bias inside the negotiation itself. Negotiation allows strategic pressure, persistence, and even controlled displays of intensity, but professional norms and conduct rules limit tactics that become discriminatory, harassing, dishonest, or abusive. Adler describes familiar patterns: being interrupted, having ideas co-opted, being treated as support rather than the decision-maker, being judged by appearance, or facing the “bring in the guy” tactic when an adversary tries to bypass a woman leading the deal and appeal to a male partner. Her practical response is not a single script, but a set of calibrated strategies: stay on point when an adversary blusters, call out inappropriate conduct when necessary, redirect the conversation to substance, and ensure that colleagues do not reward attempts to undercut the lawyer who is actually in charge.
A related issue is the role of allies and institutional design. Bias is not only an individual problem; it is reinforced or disrupted by partners, supervisors, clients, and team members who decide whether to intervene, stay silent, or redirect power back to the appropriate lawyer. Adler emphasizes techniques such as mirroring to credit the person who originated an idea, refusing to participate in exclusionary client entertainment, checking with associates before stepping in, and making clear that an adversary must negotiate with the lawyer assigned to lead the matter. She also discusses the importance of self-advocacy, noting that women may be more likely to advocate for others than for themselves, while men may more routinely report their successes to decision-makers. In her view, lawyers should learn to promote their work without apology, and leaders should be alert to the informational imbalance that can result when some lawyers are more vocal about their accomplishments than others.
The broader implications for the profession are significant. If law firms and legal departments want negotiation teams that are both effective and inclusive, they must move beyond general commitments to diversity and examine the concrete systems that allocate authority, credit, training, mentorship, leave, marketing opportunities, and client exposure. Adler describes running mock negotiations in which she plays the interrupting, dismissive adversary, along with role-play exercises and women’s programming, to prepare lawyers for real-world pressure before a major transaction is on the line. The goal is not to require every lawyer to negotiate in the same style, but to help lawyers understand their strengths, adapt to different rooms, and respond to bias without losing strategic focus.
What to Know Now
Adler's firm, known as Duval & Stachenfeld when this conversation was recorded, was renamed Adler & Stachenfeld in January 2023. She remains its Managing Partner, and cofounder Bruce Stachenfeld is Chairman.
Women's representation in law firm leadership continues to rise slowly. NALP's 2025 diversity data, released in March 2026, show women at 52.1% of associates and a record 29.6% of partners. Partners of color were 12.7%, and the share of associates of color fell for the first time since 2010, although fewer firms reported data than in prior years.
The legal landscape has shifted as well. In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (2024), the Supreme Court held that an employee challenging a discriminatory job transfer under Title VII need show only "some harm" to a term or condition of employment, not significant harm, which lowers the bar for claims about transfers and job assignments. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, in effect since June 2023, requires covered employers to make reasonable accommodations for known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions; the EEOC issued its implementing regulations in 2024. At the same time, law firm diversity programs face new federal scrutiny: in March 2025 the EEOC's acting chair sent letters to 20 large law firms requesting information about their DEI practices, including diversity-focused programs, hiring and pay practices, and affinity groups.
