Quote from B on November 5, 2022, 11:58 pm

On verbalizing the expectation that a favor is repaid in the face of a refusal

I remember an episode of the tv show “Suits” where the protagonist, Harvey Specter, goes to one of his contacts to ask for a favor.

The contact says he can’t or won’t do it.

Harvey Specter says he really needs help but the other refuses. Then Harvey says something along the line of (as best as I remember):

Harvey: Jim, this is not a request as a friend. I am asking for a favor back after what I did for you in the past. If you don’t do it, I’ll remember.

This seems the other prong of honest exchange talk. Meaning, instead of doing it at the time when one is doing the favor, one verbalizes it in the face of a refusal.

May be useful to avoid souring the relationship at the time of doing the favor, if one still has reason to think the other is a normal person following reciprocity.

On other LinkedIn or personal behaviors that signal cluelessness

I am starting to think that congratulating people on LinkedIn for “three years in job role” may signal cluelessness and is best avoided.

Also, on birthday wishes as a professional, I am starting to think that it’s best to defer them until after the conclusion of the first project, lest the client thinks it’s a way of ingratiating him or her.

And even after that, it’s best to avoid birthday wishes to clients in the face of indifference.

I remember this key person from a big client from a former big law firm I worked in.

For some years after leaving, I sent him birthday wishes via text. One year he answered with:

Thank you, you’re always so kind! Get in touch in September

I then tried to call him in September but he didn’t pick up.

I remember sending him a text which was probably not well thought out from a power dynamics perspective where I said “tried to call you, if I can be of any help let me know”.
But still no outcome from that.

I think clients, especially those who routinely deal with lawyers, can “sense” the level of experience of a lawyer and forgo engaging him if they feel he’s not on par at the time.

More in general, high power people are always unconsciously “testing” if they can trust a professional in a myriad of ways.

His text may even have been such a test. Maybe the correct answer was:

Yeah, it’d be good to catch up after the summer if we manage! Talk soon

And then leave it at that.

And not call or text in September at all.

Rather than accepting the task.

Quote from B on November 6, 2022, 12:35 pm

How to respond to "get in touch / call me" or "I'll call you soon / I count on getting in touch with you soon"

• The cause

I couldn't see why I would formerly encounter lots of this.

Now I understand these statements are a form of "game over": I had subcommunicated low power/cluelessness and the other person had (unconsciously) thought he had "no use" for a relationship with me.

So their progressive disappearance from my life is going to continue even more, now that I am learning of power dynamics.

But still, it's good to have a way of addressing these should they come up again.

• The solution

The solution is to subcommunicate the power that was formerly missing, and to avoid any reinforcement of passiveness.

By the simple fact that a superficial conversation (an exchange/power negotiation) is going on, there definitely still is a possibility of regaining at least some status:

Other: Get in touch! / I'll call you soon!

Answer: It’d be good if we are able to catch up! (subcommunicates: who knows if we - thus including I - will be able to...) Talk soon (closes the conversation)

This answer follows the "iron rules" :). It's low investment, brief, kind, and puts some leverage on the table.

So it could be good for both prongs: both when the other tasks with keeping in touch, and when the other says he will get in touch.

I recently encountered this second situation, for example, while making birthday wishes to a person.

The answer could work because it subcommunicates both "I get what you're doing", and "I'm not a passive person waiting here. I will decide whether to engage you just like you're doing now".

Even assuming the other person does not then get in touch, in case we meet again the power balance is going to start differently.

Quote from B on November 6, 2022, 1:44 pm

Past situations where I was asked by a new client for my opinion on another lawyers' work: how I botched them, and what I probably should have done instead in light of the "judge" and "teacher/learner" frameworks

I have encountered in the past two or three situations where a new, or even past, client came to me for an opinion on another lawyer's work.

In all three cases, the new client ultimately stopped all communication with me, and never returned.

I initially thought these clients were just taking me for a free ride from the start.

Now, in light of PU's awesome new lesson on the growth mindset and the "teacher/learner" frame, I see that I may have strongly contributed to losing these clients myself. And, probably, to also losing the referrer.

So here's a reconstruction of what happened, what I did, and what I think I should have done instead.

Case no. 1 -  I told them my fee would have been "just a little less"

This couple came to me because they had entrusted a criminal lawyer of recovering an amount of money they had been cheated out of.

This criminal lawyer basically made a criminal complaint and asked them, as her fee, for one third of the amount they had been stolen.

They had not recovered anything but had already paid a lot. So they came to me and asked me if I didn't think that the amount of money their lawyer had asked of them was too much.

My mistake

Internally I thought that, since they already had a lawyer, they were wasting my time.

I told them on the basis of the documentation, the fee of the other lawyer seemed reasonable.

I then added that I would have asked them just a little less, but not much less.

That was the death knell for my potential relationship with these people.

In light of the "judge" and "teacher/learner" frames, I now understand that I had bigger status than their present lawyer just because they were asking for my opinion on their lawyer's work.

When I not only confirmed everything was ok, but also that my fee was lower, I immediately reversed the situation in their mind and led them to unconsciously think that, since I had lower fees, I was "less" then their lawyer.

Facepalm.

What I should have done

I should have accepted and reinforced the frame where I was the "judge": I should have stated that I could give them a written opinion on the "correctness" of the other lawyer's fees for a fee of my own, and only after studying all relevant documentation.

If I had done so, and the work ultimately confirmed the other lawyer's fee was correct, I would still have come out as the "top lawyer": because I would have cemented the "judge frame" in their mind. I would probably ultimately have gained a client.

And I should have refrained at all from mentioning what fee I would have applied to them if I were in the shoes of the other lawyer. Which also subcommunicated I quoted fees at random, since I hadn't possibly have studied the case in half an hour in front of them.

Case no. 2 -  I told them they could "continue with their lawyer"

This client came to me upon a recommendation from another past client.

He had a big debt for tax reasons and had engaged another lawyer with a lawsuit to challenge the debt, for a high fee.

I studied all the documentation, told them that the work of the other lawyer was a "try" that had to be made and pointed out some benefits they had already gained.

And I also gave them some good ideas on how to go forward.

Then I said to them that it was best if their current lawyer implemented these ideas.

That was the death knell.

My mistake

Here, I also made the mistake of not understanding that they were unconsciously granting me a "higher status" relative to their lawyer just because they had asked for my opinion on her work.

When I confirmed that the other lawyer's work was ok, and added that the next steps were best to be followed by her, I took the role of the "back office" lawyer.

Total loss of potential client.

What I should have done

Again: my first mistake was that I should have done my work of checking the work of the other lawyer for a fee, instead of for free.

A fee is even more warranted when a lawyer is having to "judge" a colleague's work than in cases where this is not an issue.

That would have cemented the "judge" status.

Second, I should have refrained from giving them advice for the future unless they chose to switch to me.

I should have (subtly) implied that I don't give advice on legal situations where other lawyers' are implied unless I am invested of the whole case.

That would have clearly retained the "top lawyer frame" on my part.

Case no. 3 - I told him to "ask for a discount to his past lawyer"

This case was even more telling, as I had already done some work for the client.

Then he asked me to verify if another lawyers' past work was justified in the fees.

I had a reluctance to do so; I remember telling my client that the fees seemed reasonable, and I suggested to my client that it was best to ask the other lawyer for a discount, without checking the specifics.

That was probably the death knell.

My mistake

I reframed my "top lawyer" status into a frame of "ask for a kind concession to the other lawyer", when I suggested to the client he ask for a discount (which was, btw, granted).

What I should have done

I should have:

• told the client to ask the other lawyer for all documentation pertaining these fees;
• thoroughly checked the correctness of the fees of the other lawyer, for a fee of my own, and produced a written opinion;
• then suggested to the client to ask the other lawyer for a "reduction".

This would have framed the "reduction" as something due, and not as a kind concession by the other lawyer.

And I would have retained the "judge" and "top lawyer" frame.

A big picture consideration

In all three cases, the big picture frame is that:

• I was coming from a position of not wanting to "take" clients that were already engaging another lawyer
• these clients were unconsciously already looking for a better lawyer (because asking me for an opinion meant the other lawyers had already lost their trust)

This mismatch was also a cause for the loss of the potential relationship.

I think I have been too "professionally correct" in light of what I later found to be the normal baseline behavior of many people in my profession.

I also think my reluctance was due to not fully understanding bar rules implication on "judging" a colleague's work. So I am going to study the caselaw on this to ensure I know what's permissible and what's not.

Quote from B on November 6, 2022, 2:14 pm

Quote from Bel on November 6, 2022, 12:35 pm

So their progressive disappearance from my life is going to continue even more, now that I am learning of power dynamics.

Meant: the progressive disappearance of these power moves.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on November 7, 2022, 3:56 am

Quote from Bel on November 6, 2022, 12:35 pm

How to respond to "get in touch / call me" or "I'll call you soon / I count on getting in touch with you soon"

• The cause

I couldn't see why I would formerly encounter lots of this.

Now I understand these statements are a form of "game over": I had subcommunicated low power/cluelessness and the other person had (unconsciously) thought he had "no use" for a relationship with me.

So their progressive disappearance from my life is going to continue even more, now that I am learning of power dynamics.

But still, it's good to have a way of addressing these should they come up again.

• The solution

The solution is to subcommunicate the power that was formerly missing, and to avoid any reinforcement of passiveness.

By the simple fact that a superficial conversation (an exchange/power negotiation) is going on, there definitely still is a possibility of regaining at least some status:

Other: Get in touch! / I'll call you soon!

Answer: It’d be good if we are able to catch up! (subcommunicates: who knows if we - thus including I - will be able to...) Talk soon (closes the conversation)

This answer follows the "iron rules" :). It's low investment, brief, kind, and puts some leverage on the table.

So it could be good for both prongs: both when the other tasks with keeping in touch, and when the other says he will get in touch.

I recently encountered this second situation, for example, while making birthday wishes to a person.

The answer could work because it subcommunicates both "I get what you're doing", and "I'm not a passive person waiting here. I will decide whether to engage you just like you're doing now".

Even assuming the other person does not then get in touch, in case we meet again the power balance is going to start differently.

Yes, great!

BTW, Bel, if you feel that some of these are important concepts -and some of the entries in your journal really are-, consider that it might make sense to have their own threads for them.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on November 7, 2022, 4:03 am

Quote from Bel on November 6, 2022, 1:44 pm

Past situations where I was asked by a new client for my opinion on another lawyers' work: how I botched them, and what I probably should have done instead in light of the "judge" and "teacher/learner" frameworks

Yeah, many good reflections here.

Prsonally, I wouldn't say you're already and necessarily and strongly preframed as "higher status" than their previous lawyer, especially if you don't already know the client.

I'd say though that from the moment you ask, yes, you have a great chance of ending up on top.

These people are asking because they don't have a very good idea on how to judge a lawyer's work, so how ends up on top depends a lot on how you handle it.

And I tend to agree with asking for a fee to assess another lawyer's work: it's still time and effort you're expending. and it doesn't look good to do it for free.
Also, the customer then feels indebted to you and a lot of people who feel indebted end up cutting contact just because of the discomfort of that debt.

Quote from B on November 7, 2022, 3:01 pm

Thank you Lucio,

that's really helpful.

This

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on November 7, 2022, 4:03 am

Also, the customer then feels indebted to you and a lot of people who feel indebted end up cutting contact just because of the discomfort of that debt.

is eye-opening.

I had encountered the idea that not asking for payment could be a "manipulation", but I had not realized the link between not asking for payment and a potential client disappearing. That explains so much.

Quote from B on November 7, 2022, 3:34 pm

Elaborating a bit on this:

Quote from Bel on November 7, 2022, 3:01 pm

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on November 7, 2022, 4:03 am

Also, the customer then feels indebted to you and a lot of people who feel indebted end up cutting contact just because of the discomfort of that debt.

is eye-opening.

I had encountered the idea that not asking for payment could be a "manipulation", but I had not realized the link between not asking for payment and a potential client disappearing. That explains so much.

Part of it was insecurity on my side. But another part was me, trying to apply what I saw the biglaw firm partners do with their clients, albeit probably in a different context.

It's probably different to not ask for payment for a small thing when your client is a millionaire company and you are a biglaw firm partner, and a solo lawyer doing the same with a physical person.

It's also difficult to combine the learning to "not bean count" with the "ask for payment lest the client stops contact". Sometimes I seriously don't know what to ask since the work is not significant and/or I am unsure of whether I can trigger a positive result.

But I guess the learning here is that, when in doubt, it is probably better to still quote a fee, albeit small.

On this:

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on November 7, 2022, 3:56 am

BTW, Bel, if you feel that some of these are important concepts -and some of the entries in your journal really are-, consider that it might make sense to have their own threads for them.

Thanks, I'll try to open more threads when I sense I "got something", even if it turns out to be wrong, and leave the journal for times when I feel I'm going tentative.

Quote from B on November 8, 2022, 4:26 pm

New insights into law firm client dynamics

Today I got two new insights. Here they are:

To be successful, a law firm (but probably any business) needs to be pre-framed as already successful and, most importantly, not needing any specific client

When I started out, I made the mistake of "thanking" people for giving me business, and this no doubt made my startup period more lenghty and more difficult for all sorts of reasons.

I should have done what I am doing now: subcommunicating I would like to help people, but I don't strictly need any specific client.

This realization also probably explains most of the power moves I was encountering. Thanking people for asking for my help was one of the things I was doing that drove away normal people, and pre-selected manipulative people who could see the opportunity for social-scalping.

What my boss would do to secure big clients: fuller picture

I have been thinking about my boss doing work for free for key people in big clients, and then securing the big company business.

I think I am now getting a fuller picture, including the details he did not communicate to me, and that I pierced together from several small things I observed.

Here's what he probably did:

• at the start he would not quote a fee
• if a customer was a key person in a company, after a successful outcome, he probably communicated to the person that he would handle all personal matters for free (present and future) in exchange for guaranteed business with the company
• so it wasn't just the first gig: he probably told them he would do everything personal in the future for free as well
• since they had been personally sued and helped by him: on the one hand they thought the possibility was there that they could be sued again; on the other hand he (my boss) knew it was very unlikely for a physical person to be involved in two big lawsuits in one's life!
• that explains why his associates were being asked by him to work on personal cases, while he tended to concentrate on company cases: he was making other people work on the "free" cases, while he was concentrating on the "paying" cases.

By the way: since he was high-Mach, he probably had a mental reservation that if a really big personal thing came along, an exception to his offer was still possible.