Charlotte Wanendeya, ex-Magic Circle lawyer and Head of Law at BPP London, on why the skills that make a great lawyer have never mattered more
“It’s tempting to think that the key skills in an AI world are digital literacy skills” says Charlotte Wanendeya, Head of Law at BPP University (London). “But it is not as simple as this.” For Wanendeya, negotiation is a clear example of why the human side of law still matters. Having studied Anglo-French law at King’s College London and the Sorbonne in Paris, she began her career as a trainee at Magic Circle law firm Clifford Chance before moving into professional higher education.
In the years since, technology has altered the legal landscape beyond recognition, with developments reshaping daily life as a lawyer at a relentless pace. Yet what Wanendeya is keen to drive home is that the core human skills and behaviours that make someone an effective lawyer have not gone anywhere. “These human skills, which include negotiation, have always been essential for a lawyer,” she tells me, “and the current AI boom has thrown that into even sharper relief.”
Negotiation, she explains, is not a standalone skill. It is “a bundle of skills” encompassing advocacy, organisation, legal research, verbal communication, critical thinking and, perhaps most importantly, emotional intelligence. “Some people refer to these skills as soft skills. I call them human skills or power skills, as there is definitely nothing soft about them!” Wanendeya says. ” In an AI world, these skills are a lawyer’s superpower, and the very skills that will make you stand out and set you apart as an excellent lawyer.”
Stripped back to its most basic level, “negotiation is a conversation — often a very difficult one, but a conversation, nonetheless. And as with any difficult conversation, success depends on far more than talking confidently across the table. You need to articulate your position clearly and succinctly, but you also need emotional intelligence in abundance, because you need to be able to read and anticipate the other side and flex your arguments, your approach and your style.”
All of this, however, will crumble without adequate preparation. Good negotiation, Wanendeya says, starts long before anyone enters the room. She points to classic frameworks students are often taught, including BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement), WATNA (Worst Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) and ZOPA (Zone of Potential Agreement), which provide structure for that preparation.
The preparation itself, she explains, operates on three levels: your own argument, the other side’s likely argument, and the counterarguments you will need to have at the ready in response. “First, think about your own argument and individual issues” she says. What are you trying to achieve? What are your objectives? But knowing your desired outcome is not enough on its own. “You need to split your brain into two, one half seeing the big picture overall, one half seeing the detail.” In doing so, you break the bigger picture down into smaller, usable points. Wanendeya likens it to a deck of cards where each card is a different argument you can pull out when the time is right. “Second, think ahead to what the other side will say and their likely arguments on each issue; and third, prepare your counter-arguments to what you expect they will come up with.”
Emotional intelligence is another quality she returns to repeatedly. A strong negotiator needs to read the room, adapt their style and understand what is motivating the other side. That ability to “flex your approach spontaneously” is, she says, vital to success.
And despite AI’s ever-looming presence, building your own legal knowledge remains essential. “I need have the law at my fingertips more than ever in an AI world, because it’s only when I know the law that I can assess if what the other side is proposing to me, is sensible or not. I need to be able to measure the other side’s proposal against what a court would decide. And for that I need to be solid on the law whilst I’m in that negotiation room.”
Wanendeya also highlights the importance of different styles of negotiation. She describes three broad approaches: competitive, co-operative and collaborative. Competitive is self-explanatory. Co-operative might lead both sides to split the difference. Collaborative, in her view, is the ideal. To illustrate the point, she reaches for the well-known proverbial orange analogy from Roger Fisher and William Ury’s seminal text on negotiation: Getting to Yes. One party wants the orange, the other wants it too. A competitive approach likely means one person gets it all; a co-operative one likely means cutting it in half. A collaborative approach goes deeper, she says. “Let’s roll up our sleeves and work together here and see what we each need the orange for. It turns out you need the juice and I need the skin. We’re both winners. A collaborative approach or style of negotiation, to me, is the best one.”
That emphasis on collaboration does not mean negotiations will always run smoothly. “Deadlock is highly likely to happen,” says Wanendeya, and students should not panic when it does. Fear of deadlock can push inexperienced negotiators into unnecessary concessions. “All right then, why don’t we split the difference?” is, in her view, the move of someone who simply wants the discomfort to end.
There are better responses available. Park the issue. Move on to something else. Take stock of progress already made, then return to the sticking point with fresh perspective. “Don’t be afraid of deadlock,” she advises.
Wanendeya is also clear that there is a distinction between legal negotiation and simple bargaining. One of the most common mistakes she sees from first timers is reducing the whole exercise to swapping numbers. “The thing that is most frustrating is seeing first timers just bartering,” she says. “Every time you go up or down, if it is money, there has to be a justification. Legal negotiation, in other words, is not just bartering, but rather needs to be reasoned carefully, with facts, and firmly based in law.”
Repetition is another frequent error. “That’s what new students do a lot — simply repeat the same argument over and over again, as if suddenly, I’m going to be convinced because you said it for the 10th time,” she says. “I’m not.” If a point is not landing, the answer is to “pull out a different card” and move the discussion forward.
Alongside factual and legal preparation, Wanendeya makes a case for mental preparation too. Negotiation can be intimidating, especially in an assessment setting, and nerves can derail even a well-prepared candidate. In the negotiation room itself, she suggests picturing someone you deeply respect sitting down at the table alongside you and the other side. “I literally visualise them sitting down at the negotiating table with us.” By visualising a calming, principled presence, you create an internal check on your own behaviour, and in turn, can keep a check on any nerves and remain even-tempered. Even something as simple as mentally playing a favourite confidence-boosting song as you walk in can make a difference. It is all about getting “in the right zone.”
And one final practical tip: unless you truly mean it, beware of saying “this is my final offer”. “If you say that, you really do have to stick to it,” Wanendeya warns, “otherwise you risk losing credibility and then it’s game over.”
Negotiation ultimately demands far more than the ability to argue in a boardroom or courtroom. It is a test of a lawyer’s ability to prepare, reason and understand those sitting across the table, working towards a conclusion where, in an ideal world, everyone wins.
Charlotte Wanendeya will be speaking at ‘Mastering negotiation for SQE2 — with BPP’, a virtual event taking place NEXT TUESDAY (17 March 2026). Secure your place!
About Legal Cheek Careers posts.
