Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Bank director who stopped responding
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 20, 2023, 2:17 pmEmail wording may not make much difference when someone sees you negatively.
Angry emails confirm one is a SOB, conciliatory ones are framed as low-power slimy.
Unless you're sure of a quick win and resolution with the escalation, I'd consider going there in person.
Don't get dragged down fighting wars that someone else started for you.
Fight your own only, and only when you absolutely must.
Ok, thank you Lucio.
I do not see any possible positive resolution of this matter, but I need to go on in any case, as the bank is holding assets that in part were left to me also.
I don't think I'll go there without an appointment, as he might take it as a form of stalking.
So I suppose I'll just push with the email where I announce I will involve the control authority.
And then so be it.
The bank, and the director, have their share of responsibility. I omitted the part where the director tried to have my parents sign a full release by surprise when I was not present.
In other words, I concentrated on my part here, but he for sure was not "fully positive" as well.
I sent the "conciliatory" email where I try starting on a new foot.
Let's see what happens and if I will be forced to escalate.
First, I thought the email was perfect then I read what Lucio said. I also think going in person it's the best way to repair the relationship. This guy will respect you for it. That's a show of respect.
PS: read your last 2 posts (did not appear when I wrote). Maybe it will give the desired result: let's see!
Ok, I could try going there as a last resort next week before escalating.
Although I think I am in fact already reempowering him with my email, and his interpretation of my email is now his problem.
That said, I also don’t want to lower myself too much for something that’s not my fault.
So I’m not inclined to go there as of now.
Also: my email is meant to also leave him the opportunity to save face, by precluding me escalating legally, and by allowing him to retake the “bigger guy” stance (since I am being very thankful and polite now).
If he does not want to take the opportunity, in the end, no problem.
I WILL escalate, and it will be me who will have sent the “last reasonable email”.
And that my father got angry is not written anywhere in the emails we exchanged, and I would also say is legally irrelevant.
What’s more legally relevant is that I sent four emails which received no reply, while the bank is still keeping money that is of property of my clients.
EDIT: I will start working on the complaint immediately, since I saw from past experiences that having it ready makes my emails more persuasive in tone.
That said, I also don’t want to lower myself too much for something that’s not my fault.
Here I would prioritize power (reaching your goal) over status.
Yes you don't have to go, it's an option. The one thing I would be cautious about is not to let it escalate into an ego battle: it's lose-lose. And going is not submitting, it's an olive branch in my mind.
I think you'll have more information when you'll get an answer and go from there.
There could be another explanation for this whole situation (and for some previous ones as well), that only now I think about.
This: when I sent him an email asking for what I wanted from my professional (lawyer) email, he could have gotten "scared", that if he answered me I could have held him to his "word".
In fact, I remember that I did not want to send him my requests in writing and preferred to talk about them on the phone, but in the end he insisted for me to send him an email. I complied, then he stopped responding.
I also remember that in a subsequent occasion with another different and unrelated person, who asked me to send him an email with what I wanted, I refused. And the conversation continued.
This might point in the direction that some people who ask to be sent emails from me, after they receive it, "realize" they are talking to a lawyer and get "scared".
Might be worth experimenting with trying to keep conversations mostly verbal in the future, if possible (as in this case that I am a party, and not formally acting as a lawyer) when the other party is at fault.
This might also explain your suggestion to "go there in person", which might derive from the fact that you subconsciously picked up that the issue was the email medium used for communication.
If that's the case, my last email where I thanked him and asked him to "talk or see each other" might already be going in the right direction.
EDIT: this might also point in the direction of removing my signature or using another (non-professional) email for non-professional matters, although the "real issue" is that I am a lawyer!!!
EDIT: This may also explain the requests by my former boss and my former colleague in other threads to "go to them in person", which I interpreted as a submission request... in reality they were scared I could use their emails against them!
I talked with an acquaintance of mine who works at a high level in another bank, who told me that this kind of delay by the banks is very common and it solely depends on bank's internal slow procedures.
She told me that the only way to expedite the process is usually legal escalation.
So I at least know it was not due to something I did or didn't do.
And that legal escalation is the only way.
Rather, I suppose my "mistake" was not realizing that I should have legally escalated much sooner.
Well, now that I sent the "polite email" I will have to wait at least one week, until mid next week, and then I'll send the "regret to inform you we are forced to escalate" communication.
Knowledge is power :).
And good reminder for us all to:
- never jump to conclusions and be too sure of our own analyses
- think higher level, rather than single words (exceptions always apply of course, everything's important and sometimes it may be exactly one word that tips the scale. Also doesn't apply to beginners who should over-analyze everything)
- analyze based on the right priorities:
- pattern of behaviors
- WIFFT
- behavior / red flags / power moves
- first-level analyses, as close as possible to the facts (the more we psychologize, the farther away we move from the facts)
Hello Bel,
excellent news! Thanks for sharing.
I think this analysis also does showcase the following qualities about you: determination, thoroughness and open-mindedness. When I read how you were researching other possibilities I thought: "Wow, another likely hypothesis". So these are qualities I admire as they do help us reach our goals. So kudos! I think this case is a great example of a problem-solving attitude.
Thank you very much Lucio, in my notes! I think it does take a lot of work to be a rational thinker for us all. It's a never-ending journey: "I think I'm a rational thinker... oh shit I had this bias" (not the case here, general statement).
I agree guys.
I for sure have a tendency to "think too much".
But it also serves me well in that I usually am able to predict most (not all) possible outcomes and orient my work to cover most of them.
In addition, I still think that everything we discussed about here and everything we shared as a possible cause did in fact apply to the case, at least in part.
Meaning that, although maybe the bank would still have stalled, every point we discussed still applies.
No doubt everything we discussed, that I did or did not do, contributed to this "outcome", where unfortunately I have to - again - do more "legal work".
So this is a learning for me in all senses and respects. And probably next time, by implementing all the learning I got here, the result will be different and better.
