Why "client is best friends with the firm's managing partner and will never settle"? Rather than AND "the law clearly supported the firm's client"?

Question

1. Why did Managing Partner tip Associate to "tell opposing counsel [MERELY] that our client is best friends with the firm's managing partner and will never settle"? What's wrong with Associate's first reply ("he had exhaustively researched the law and that the law clearly supported the firm's client, so the other party should settle") ?

2. Why didn't Managing Partner tip Associate to proffer BOTH reasons, and improve the Associate's reply by name-dropping the Partner? To wit, why not "tell opposing counsel that our client is best friends with the firm's managing partner and will never settle"
   PLUS
   that BOTH Partner and Associate "had exhaustively researched the law and that the law clearly supported the firm's client, so the other party should settle" ?

Learning to work with opposing counsel takes practice. You need to be assertive, but not obnoxious, and respectful, but not fawning. It is also critical to think strategically:
        As an associate headed out to a meeting with opposing counsel with the goal of reaching a settlement, the managing partner asked, "So what are you going to tell opposing counsel?" The associate replied that he was going to tell opposing counsel that he had exhaustively researched the law and that the law clearly supported the firm's client, so the other party should settle. [Emphasis added]
        "No," the managing partner boomed, "You are going to tell opposing counsel that our client is best friends with the firm's managing partner and will never settle." [Gray highlight added] The case settled promptly thereafter—exactly the result the client wanted.

Grover E. Cleveland, Swimming Lessons for Baby Sharks : The Essential Guide to Thriving as a New Lawyer (2016 2 edn), page 139.

Answer 1

Bargaining bluff

Telling them that you have "exhaustively researched the law" in the endeavor to make them settle will only invite them to question & debate your research and thus grant them some bargaining power.

Instead of doing that, an experienced lawyer (A) gets what they want (settlement on their terms) by being pushy and pretending they're not going to settle and are heading to the court. The opposing counsel (B), perhaps having researched the law themselves, comes to the conclusion that it is better to offer a settlement. But now lawyer A has the bargaining power and gets what they want.

Answer 2

Because when Lawyer A claims to have exhaustively researched the law and concluded that his client is right, Lawyer B will not credit that statement, even for a second.

Answer 3

Because this is a negotiation, not a legal argument

What you say to your opponent before you get to court is not (necessarily) a statement of your legal rights. It’s a discussion on how to end the dispute as quickly and as painlessly as possible. This can include a statement (right or wrong) that the principle is more important than the money. Don’t say this unless you’re very rich and don’t mind spending a lot of money just for the satisfaction of breaking your opponent.

For example:

Packer’s legendary willingness to gamble led to some of the most incredible casino stories ever heard, and include an epic put down of a multi-millionaire Texan oil baron.

Bored by the Texas man’s boorish behaviour at the blackjack tables, Packer called the braggart out over his claimed $100million worth.

“I’ll flip you for it,” was Packer’s brutal offer, the Texan suddenly lost for words at the idea of his fortune resting on the toss of a coin. For Packer, a many-times self-made millionaire, it was just another day at his ‘other’ office.

It’s not what you say to the judge

If the case gets to court, then you have to make cognisant legal arguments.

But if you do get to court, you’re effectively saying “I’ll flip you for it.”