The main theme running around this BLOG has been whether or not being myself, i.e., nice, forgiving, helpful, even a "goody-two-shoes" to some, is something that others take advantage of, and if so, how do I stop that, AND do I really care if others keep "trying it on."
Obviously, I do care if those that I have offered help to turn around and use it against me, but not for the reasons one might think. It isn't a pride thing, and I am not pitying myself for being played by those out there who seem to live to use other people. It is the fact that these people usually cause me and my family, staff, friends, etc., extra work, or stress, or the players' actions just seem to frustrate and harass, in a world in which it is becoming increasingly difficult to maneuver - effectively and efficiently. Being effective and efficient is the environment in which I was raised, and it is inherent in me now. I have fine tuned this characteristic because it is helpful to my law practice, and benefits all of us there, clients and staff, alike. Me, I can deal with the stupid player who makes a game out of causing mayhem in people's lives -- for whatever reason they feel they have a right to. Perhaps, as in the former employee I discussed earlier, they have some misguided idea that they are a victim and everyone around them is either out to get them, or has/is about to let them down. Can't fix Stupid, remember, and that grates on me because STUPID is also dangerous in many ways. Not mortally, necessarily (although STUPID is dangerous when cars and other "weapons" are in the mix), but they are dangerous to how others around us live their lives.
What, exactly, does that mean, you ask? Well, let's give an example.
Janet is a friend, and has been a friend since she was a client some 14 years ago. Janet has a couple of kids, from one husband, and a disabled child from her recent ex-husband. Janet lives a couple of hours away from my office, and the disabled child has certain schedules Janet keeps to ensure his schooling, medical appointments, and visitation with the child's dad. Janet no longer works outside the home for some other reasons that she was not responsible for. This was the client that the former employee from an earlier BLOG post actively worked to "screw over." Why did she take affirmative action to "screw her over?" Because she knew she is a friend of mine. Did it matter to this former employee that Janet has a life that is already full of things that are important, and need to be done every day for the sake of her family? So, dangerous to not only Janet, an innocent in this former employee's mentally deficient battle against me, for her own insane and inane reasons, but dangerous in many ways to the children Janet is responsible for.
So, am I expected to "play nice" with this former employee who has an obvious mental deficiency? Am I expected to "be myself" because I will not change for anyone, despite what some of these "players" choose to try to hit me with? Where is the base line in this, and where is the toe-line, and where is "too far?" Do I choose to be less interactive, sympathetic, empathetic (as the case may be), with all clients and staff, and only become that person outside of work? Why is it necessary to switch that on and off because others' actions cannot be trusted -- even though I don't know who can be trusted and who can't be trusted until they actually show their true colors? Comments are welcomed!
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Saturday, January 7, 2012
On to some people I have done work for . . .
Okay, so no names here, and only general situations, but still with the disclaimer that any similarity to a real person is purely coincidental..........
I don't want to be a jackass to anyone. I want to be myself, and treat everyone the same, with kindness and an open heart, despite what many (the majority?) of my colleagues believe is the right way to act with clients, staff, etc. That is not my way, although maybe their way works for them. But, I have a hard time believing that those colleagues who treat their clients with equal contempt ever face the same stupidity and just plain "you've got to be kidding" situations that I face with about 1 out of 10 clients. We have a saying in our office, "You can't fix Stupid." I need to stop trying to fix stupid.
The standard, "You didn't tell me I had to pay you." is always good for a laugh. Then, there is the "That was not told to me," when the Attorney Fee Agreement they sign has a place for them to initial after every paragraph to ensure that they read each paragraph before they initial it. Then, in response to reminding them about that, "Oh, I didn't read it. . ."
The others that are pretty delightful and entertaining:
* You were supposed to let me read the Order to proof it before you signed off on it to send it to the Judge because I took notes, too, and that Order is not what my notes say.
* My Father was in the Courtroom all the time and that is not what my husband/wife said.
* You never asked the questions I told you to ask.
* Why didn't you OBJECT????
* You didn't tell me I couldn't have a girlfriend/boyfriend
Q: Do you recall our first consultation when I asked you if your spouse's allegation that you committed adultery was true, and you said "No?"
* You didn't tell me I had to pay child support
Q: Do you recall when we sat down together and you told me that you did not want custody of your kids, and that you were okay with paying to support your kids?
* You didn't tell me why my child support is so much
Q: Do you recall giving me your income information, your spouse's income information, and the time we sat down with that information and I explained the Excel Spreadsheet I did while you sat there, printed it out, and explained the top, middle and bottom lines to you? And, do you recall my question then, "Do you understand this, or do you need me to explain it differently?"
Q: So, Mr. Smith. You have a problem with how your ex disciplines the kids and you want to change visitation because they abuse the kids. How do you discipline the kids, then?
A: Well, I used to use a belt but the buckle left a bruise, so I switched to a 2 x 4.
(Honest, Abe. This is a true one.)
* My husband says that you get scared when things don't go your way and when you aren't going to win, so that must be why you haven't contacted his lawyer and why this is taking so long. Now I am really scared because that must be why you haven't done anything.
Q: Why are you suddenly listening to your husband? Isn't he the one who beat you up last week, and who has three girlfriends you just found out about, and who gave you VD? And, why are you talking to him when there is a restraining order in place? And, when was the last time you made a payment because our records don't show a payment on your payment agreement since last April. . .
* You have a serious problem getting back to your clients. I called 20 times today and no one called me back.
Q: Are you aware that 1) you have my e-mail address for a reason -- I gave it to you on that little white card you got the day you first consulted with me, and 2) we don't work on Saturdays.
More to come.......
I don't want to be a jackass to anyone. I want to be myself, and treat everyone the same, with kindness and an open heart, despite what many (the majority?) of my colleagues believe is the right way to act with clients, staff, etc. That is not my way, although maybe their way works for them. But, I have a hard time believing that those colleagues who treat their clients with equal contempt ever face the same stupidity and just plain "you've got to be kidding" situations that I face with about 1 out of 10 clients. We have a saying in our office, "You can't fix Stupid." I need to stop trying to fix stupid.
The standard, "You didn't tell me I had to pay you." is always good for a laugh. Then, there is the "That was not told to me," when the Attorney Fee Agreement they sign has a place for them to initial after every paragraph to ensure that they read each paragraph before they initial it. Then, in response to reminding them about that, "Oh, I didn't read it. . ."
The others that are pretty delightful and entertaining:
* You were supposed to let me read the Order to proof it before you signed off on it to send it to the Judge because I took notes, too, and that Order is not what my notes say.
* My Father was in the Courtroom all the time and that is not what my husband/wife said.
* You never asked the questions I told you to ask.
* Why didn't you OBJECT????
* You didn't tell me I couldn't have a girlfriend/boyfriend
Q: Do you recall our first consultation when I asked you if your spouse's allegation that you committed adultery was true, and you said "No?"
* You didn't tell me I had to pay child support
Q: Do you recall when we sat down together and you told me that you did not want custody of your kids, and that you were okay with paying to support your kids?
* You didn't tell me why my child support is so much
Q: Do you recall giving me your income information, your spouse's income information, and the time we sat down with that information and I explained the Excel Spreadsheet I did while you sat there, printed it out, and explained the top, middle and bottom lines to you? And, do you recall my question then, "Do you understand this, or do you need me to explain it differently?"
Q: So, Mr. Smith. You have a problem with how your ex disciplines the kids and you want to change visitation because they abuse the kids. How do you discipline the kids, then?
A: Well, I used to use a belt but the buckle left a bruise, so I switched to a 2 x 4.
(Honest, Abe. This is a true one.)
* My husband says that you get scared when things don't go your way and when you aren't going to win, so that must be why you haven't contacted his lawyer and why this is taking so long. Now I am really scared because that must be why you haven't done anything.
Q: Why are you suddenly listening to your husband? Isn't he the one who beat you up last week, and who has three girlfriends you just found out about, and who gave you VD? And, why are you talking to him when there is a restraining order in place? And, when was the last time you made a payment because our records don't show a payment on your payment agreement since last April. . .
* You have a serious problem getting back to your clients. I called 20 times today and no one called me back.
Q: Are you aware that 1) you have my e-mail address for a reason -- I gave it to you on that little white card you got the day you first consulted with me, and 2) we don't work on Saturdays.
More to come.......
So, some specifics then . . . former employee bites hand that feeds her. . .
Do you recall my comments about taking in strays? Well, it wasn't meant as a slam against those people who have come to me for help when they couldn't get help anywhere else. Actually, the word "stray" was used by one of my friends when they admonished me for being less wise than I apparently should be, all things considered. Look at my age, my profession, my history, after all. But, I am ever the optimist, ever the romantic, always kind, forgive easily, try very hard to understand why people do things to other people, and above all, I am consistent in my attempts to help people understand why bad things happen to them and how they can help their own situation. I am learning, slowly but surely, that some people cannot be reached. It is kind of like the alcoholic who cannot actually be helped if they do not want to be helped or if they won't admit they have a problem.
A few years ago, I told my Husband, Jim, that if I ever thought about hiring a former client, again, to just shoot me before I did it -- again. I have had employees who became clients during the course of their employment with me, and I have had clients who became employees once their case finished. To be fair, I have had more of the former category than the later category, but it seems that the later category has been the most troublesome. Case in point, a recent employee, recently let go for "gross misconduct." She was a former client, and we worked on a follow-on case after she started working for me. So, she was a "hybrid" of the two types. She could not get (or keep) a job in the area, and blamed her former spouse for this. She was evicted from the place she had been renting, and needed a place to stay, and furniture. We put her in touch with a friend who had a rental, and gave her furniture. We were flexible with her hours to help her out. Obviously, there are more facts, but the bottom line here is that we could not have worked with her more, or helped her more, in every possible way if we sat down and spent hours thinking up ways we had not already helped.
My license to practice law is important to me -- duh!! That goes without saying, of course, but I have a hard time trying to explain that to people like this former employee. I should just make a recording for as much good as it did, but this employee stepped over the line recently. The more we all talked about it after she was gone, the more I found out about this person and what she had done. The thing is, none of us looked for this kind of thing that was going on behind our backs, because we just do our jobs and all of us assume everything is fine among the staff at the office. Back stabbing and purposefully doing things to cause mayhem with the files, the calendar, the clients, and the staff, is not something that any normal person would expect from someone who has benefited daily from working at the Firm. Yet, the signs of her treachery are everywhere. So, I let her go, although we attempted to do so in the nicest possible way, only to have it literally thrown in our faces. Now, it is time for the ever popular "Separation Notice" required by the Department of Labor.
I thought I had done my usual job of writing everything down, covering all angles, and basically educating this former employee to give her some idea of what she did wrong (as if she did not know), and how she might improve her lot in the future. Having a friend and colleague or two critique it, I now see that it was too long, too nice, too "human interest" in nature. Cut to the chase, and move on. Problem is, this former employee threatened defamatory action against me and my staff. How does one squelch that sort of thing and do it nicely -- or at least squelch it in a way that is not defamatory in itself, or intimidating in its own right?
So, nice lady lawyer, former employee from hell, who tells me my people skills suck. Gee, coming from her, I take that as a compliment. More later, this time on some clients!
A few years ago, I told my Husband, Jim, that if I ever thought about hiring a former client, again, to just shoot me before I did it -- again. I have had employees who became clients during the course of their employment with me, and I have had clients who became employees once their case finished. To be fair, I have had more of the former category than the later category, but it seems that the later category has been the most troublesome. Case in point, a recent employee, recently let go for "gross misconduct." She was a former client, and we worked on a follow-on case after she started working for me. So, she was a "hybrid" of the two types. She could not get (or keep) a job in the area, and blamed her former spouse for this. She was evicted from the place she had been renting, and needed a place to stay, and furniture. We put her in touch with a friend who had a rental, and gave her furniture. We were flexible with her hours to help her out. Obviously, there are more facts, but the bottom line here is that we could not have worked with her more, or helped her more, in every possible way if we sat down and spent hours thinking up ways we had not already helped.
My license to practice law is important to me -- duh!! That goes without saying, of course, but I have a hard time trying to explain that to people like this former employee. I should just make a recording for as much good as it did, but this employee stepped over the line recently. The more we all talked about it after she was gone, the more I found out about this person and what she had done. The thing is, none of us looked for this kind of thing that was going on behind our backs, because we just do our jobs and all of us assume everything is fine among the staff at the office. Back stabbing and purposefully doing things to cause mayhem with the files, the calendar, the clients, and the staff, is not something that any normal person would expect from someone who has benefited daily from working at the Firm. Yet, the signs of her treachery are everywhere. So, I let her go, although we attempted to do so in the nicest possible way, only to have it literally thrown in our faces. Now, it is time for the ever popular "Separation Notice" required by the Department of Labor.
I thought I had done my usual job of writing everything down, covering all angles, and basically educating this former employee to give her some idea of what she did wrong (as if she did not know), and how she might improve her lot in the future. Having a friend and colleague or two critique it, I now see that it was too long, too nice, too "human interest" in nature. Cut to the chase, and move on. Problem is, this former employee threatened defamatory action against me and my staff. How does one squelch that sort of thing and do it nicely -- or at least squelch it in a way that is not defamatory in itself, or intimidating in its own right?
So, nice lady lawyer, former employee from hell, who tells me my people skills suck. Gee, coming from her, I take that as a compliment. More later, this time on some clients!
Try to be a nice person, er, lawyer, and . . .
Okay, so now that some of the foundation is down (and I expect to have to lay more as we go along here), let's get into some more detailed information.
First, let me say that any similarities to real people that might be described in this BLOG, are probably based, in part, on experiences I have had with clients, staff, Judges, opposing Counsel, but I will not use names. I will not divulge anything that might breach client confidentiality, and if I describe something about staff, former staff, or others who are not clients or former clients, that information will be truthful.
I have a thing about "strays." I have pets that were strays, rescued dogs and cats, and cockatiels. It is in my nature to help those who have been put in a situation that, from all outward appearances, was not caused by any actions of their own. Animals, of course, are subject to what we humans either do to them, or for them. People, on the other hand, are not always the victims they would like the rest of us to believe they are. There is always the "poor, poor, pitiful me" out there, and they usually find me. Let me be clear that the last thing I ever want to see in the mirror when I awake in the morning, is a Jacob Marley or Ebeneezer Scrooge. I am 58 years old, and I can honestly say that I cannot recall ever treating a client or a staff member, or anyone else I have had dealings with in such a way that I would fear the day I meet my Maker. I treat others with respect (the Golden Rule) because it is the right thing to do. I may not like the person I am dealing with, for whatever reason they have given me in the past, or I may not trust them, but I will treat them with respect due, respect earned. This, unfortunately, gives an "in" to those out there who see this as a weakness. Nice people are apparently dim, weak, or otherwise easy to take advantage of and treat with contempt.
I am a big fan of a writer by the name of Don Miguel Ruiz. I have bought his books over the years, multiple copies to have on-hand for me, and for others with whom I come in contact who seem to need the sort of guidance his books give. Those people include family, clients, friends, or neighbors, and although I won't be so naive as to think that they have all read these books, those who have read them have reported back to me how those books made a huge difference in their outlook. One of the books, The Four Agreements, is especially dear to me, and I re-read it annually, mainly to remind myself: That just because some of those people I come in contact with, whether they are clients, opposing Counsel, Judges, or staff, may think I am poor at something, a bad person, a greedy person, an inept Attorney, a horrible boss, doesn't make it so. Who I am is who I am. Those others have their own baggage, and their "take" on me is colored by their baggage. But their "take" on who I am is personal to them -- it does not change who I am, who I have chosen to be, and I will not buy into their "Press." Bottom line here: I am not weak, dim, or easy to take advantage of, nor will I allow someone to treat me with contempt. If someone thinks they can treat me this way, or that they have "gotten away with something" they are mistaken, and that will be proven in time by their own actions. I am nice to people, I am honest with people, and I always try my best to help them to the very best of my ability -- just like Perry Mason.
More to come later -- with more specifics!
First, let me say that any similarities to real people that might be described in this BLOG, are probably based, in part, on experiences I have had with clients, staff, Judges, opposing Counsel, but I will not use names. I will not divulge anything that might breach client confidentiality, and if I describe something about staff, former staff, or others who are not clients or former clients, that information will be truthful.
I have a thing about "strays." I have pets that were strays, rescued dogs and cats, and cockatiels. It is in my nature to help those who have been put in a situation that, from all outward appearances, was not caused by any actions of their own. Animals, of course, are subject to what we humans either do to them, or for them. People, on the other hand, are not always the victims they would like the rest of us to believe they are. There is always the "poor, poor, pitiful me" out there, and they usually find me. Let me be clear that the last thing I ever want to see in the mirror when I awake in the morning, is a Jacob Marley or Ebeneezer Scrooge. I am 58 years old, and I can honestly say that I cannot recall ever treating a client or a staff member, or anyone else I have had dealings with in such a way that I would fear the day I meet my Maker. I treat others with respect (the Golden Rule) because it is the right thing to do. I may not like the person I am dealing with, for whatever reason they have given me in the past, or I may not trust them, but I will treat them with respect due, respect earned. This, unfortunately, gives an "in" to those out there who see this as a weakness. Nice people are apparently dim, weak, or otherwise easy to take advantage of and treat with contempt.
I am a big fan of a writer by the name of Don Miguel Ruiz. I have bought his books over the years, multiple copies to have on-hand for me, and for others with whom I come in contact who seem to need the sort of guidance his books give. Those people include family, clients, friends, or neighbors, and although I won't be so naive as to think that they have all read these books, those who have read them have reported back to me how those books made a huge difference in their outlook. One of the books, The Four Agreements, is especially dear to me, and I re-read it annually, mainly to remind myself: That just because some of those people I come in contact with, whether they are clients, opposing Counsel, Judges, or staff, may think I am poor at something, a bad person, a greedy person, an inept Attorney, a horrible boss, doesn't make it so. Who I am is who I am. Those others have their own baggage, and their "take" on me is colored by their baggage. But their "take" on who I am is personal to them -- it does not change who I am, who I have chosen to be, and I will not buy into their "Press." Bottom line here: I am not weak, dim, or easy to take advantage of, nor will I allow someone to treat me with contempt. If someone thinks they can treat me this way, or that they have "gotten away with something" they are mistaken, and that will be proven in time by their own actions. I am nice to people, I am honest with people, and I always try my best to help them to the very best of my ability -- just like Perry Mason.
More to come later -- with more specifics!
Laying the foundation . . . Try to be a nice person, and . . .
I wanted to be an Attorney when I was eight years old and had started watching Perry Mason on television. He was strong in his beliefs, fair, smart, and he was nice to his staff. He was even nice to his criminal clients because he believed in them as people who deserved to be treated with respect. I swore that if I was able to work my life in such a way as to become a lawyer, I would be like him.
I had no problem being a "people person" since I learned the art of conversation at a very young age, and became a real chatty-Cathy from the time I learned to talk -- or so I have been reminded every time family gets together. And, although my childhood was tainted with some things that are best left for another discussion, those things made me stronger and more empathetic toward clients and their families. I have faithfully followed Perry's lead on how to treat my staff, and for the most part, that has helped me be successful in my career. A good staff helps, and good staff comes from being in a "happy place." A happy place is created by a boss who cares about their staff, and expects that everyone will respect each other, even if they don't like each other enough to hang-out after hours.
For the most part, I love my job. Lately, things have been very busy -- too busy, truth be told, and they have been too hectic to allow much time to enjoy this work like I used to. Getting paid for my services helps, of course, and although that sounds like an odd comment (because, after all, don't lawyers get well paid?), there are always clients who have something else to spend their money on rather than pay their debt to you, as agreed in the payment agreement. But, despite what many people think about lawyers in general, I do not place as much emphasis on the money aspect of the job as I do on the successful outcome of the client's case. By successful, it may surprise people to learn that success is not always measured by whether or not your client has been awarded everything they were seeking. Let me explain.
Clients have certain expectations, and many times those expectations are formulated from discussions with friends and families, and other times they are based on what they have seen on television, i.e., their favorite lawyer shows or even what has been on the news. Probably 99% of the time the information they are receiving from any of these sources has come from another time (far distant past), another County in the State, another State, a fictional character (Ally McBeal comes to mind), or other sources that have absolutely no connection to my client or their case. I love friends and family who get involved with clients, filling their heads with stories about when their sister's neighbor's best friend's aunt got her divorce in Kentucky in 1965, or when their Uncle Joe's cousin in Baton Rouge was arrested for arson when he was at his girlfriend's house instead of being at home with his wife. The point is, my clients' expectations are not always realistic, and even if I am able to get some reality through to them, the minute those family and friends start in, my job just became double-the-trouble. I cannot begin to count the number of clients who ask the same questions a dozen times over a year because family and friends have told them a different outcome based on experiences they have had or have heard about.
And talk about frustration when clients come to me, frantic because their soon-to-be former spouse told them that their lawyer told them that I was a bad lawyer, a greedy person, and that I always do things that should not be done because of some stupid reason. Now, if they are getting rid of that spouse because of something they have done that is unforgivable, they hate each other for some reason, they no longer trust each other, can someone please tell me why that person should be believed about anything -- specifically, why do you think your good-for-nothing spouse would say ANYTHING nice about your lawyer???? And why does that good-for-nothing spouse have anything to say that should matter to you, in any way, ever again?
Okay, so all of the above was to lay groundwork for this first post about trying to be a nice person.
I had no problem being a "people person" since I learned the art of conversation at a very young age, and became a real chatty-Cathy from the time I learned to talk -- or so I have been reminded every time family gets together. And, although my childhood was tainted with some things that are best left for another discussion, those things made me stronger and more empathetic toward clients and their families. I have faithfully followed Perry's lead on how to treat my staff, and for the most part, that has helped me be successful in my career. A good staff helps, and good staff comes from being in a "happy place." A happy place is created by a boss who cares about their staff, and expects that everyone will respect each other, even if they don't like each other enough to hang-out after hours.
For the most part, I love my job. Lately, things have been very busy -- too busy, truth be told, and they have been too hectic to allow much time to enjoy this work like I used to. Getting paid for my services helps, of course, and although that sounds like an odd comment (because, after all, don't lawyers get well paid?), there are always clients who have something else to spend their money on rather than pay their debt to you, as agreed in the payment agreement. But, despite what many people think about lawyers in general, I do not place as much emphasis on the money aspect of the job as I do on the successful outcome of the client's case. By successful, it may surprise people to learn that success is not always measured by whether or not your client has been awarded everything they were seeking. Let me explain.
Clients have certain expectations, and many times those expectations are formulated from discussions with friends and families, and other times they are based on what they have seen on television, i.e., their favorite lawyer shows or even what has been on the news. Probably 99% of the time the information they are receiving from any of these sources has come from another time (far distant past), another County in the State, another State, a fictional character (Ally McBeal comes to mind), or other sources that have absolutely no connection to my client or their case. I love friends and family who get involved with clients, filling their heads with stories about when their sister's neighbor's best friend's aunt got her divorce in Kentucky in 1965, or when their Uncle Joe's cousin in Baton Rouge was arrested for arson when he was at his girlfriend's house instead of being at home with his wife. The point is, my clients' expectations are not always realistic, and even if I am able to get some reality through to them, the minute those family and friends start in, my job just became double-the-trouble. I cannot begin to count the number of clients who ask the same questions a dozen times over a year because family and friends have told them a different outcome based on experiences they have had or have heard about.
And talk about frustration when clients come to me, frantic because their soon-to-be former spouse told them that their lawyer told them that I was a bad lawyer, a greedy person, and that I always do things that should not be done because of some stupid reason. Now, if they are getting rid of that spouse because of something they have done that is unforgivable, they hate each other for some reason, they no longer trust each other, can someone please tell me why that person should be believed about anything -- specifically, why do you think your good-for-nothing spouse would say ANYTHING nice about your lawyer???? And why does that good-for-nothing spouse have anything to say that should matter to you, in any way, ever again?
Okay, so all of the above was to lay groundwork for this first post about trying to be a nice person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)