Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on November 16, 2022, 5:38 am

I think you did very well actually.

You touched on many of the most important buttons that had to be addressed while also defending boundaries.

Also to think about their own internal dynamics and interests and to strategize with that in mind: that's the right approach.
Sometimes winning the customer has more to do with social strategies than actual legal knowledge.

A different idea/approach:

Client: I don't understand if we're talking strategy here.
Me: We are talking strategy.
Client: Then please limit yourself to doing the lawyer, and let us think about the strategy.
Me: No (<---- stronger initial "frame check" to prepare the ground for setting your own frame), sorry, but that's not how legal representation works. Legal strategy is what any good lawyer worth his salt does (<---- self-frames as a good lawyer able to do a good job for them). That's the added value of a lawyer. Without good legal strategies, one wouldn't even need a good lawyer (<----frames it "you need me")

If you wanted to go harder here and very high-power, you may say that "you're in it for winning for the clients", and to "win" you must be free to talk legal strategies, or it won't work.

That's high risk though.

YOu can do that when you can pick your clients.

Otherwise, this is higher odds of working on the case:

Client: No you should defend us, and we/I do the strategy which I'm perfectly capable of doing myself. Otherwise we're wasting time here.

Me: Yes, you're the final decision maker on what we do and I absolutely respect that (<----align first).
But maybe we're not clear on what "defending" means. Allow me to clarify how I see my role when it comes to defending. To me defending you means help you to do and decide what's best for you. What gives you the highest chance of winning (<----use strong keywords, you're there to help them win. The best decision, even if means paying, is still winning).
That may mean fighting in court, or it may not.
And yes, you'll be the final decision maker on that. And if you decide to fight, I'll fight the hardest for you to win (<---- give me what he wants to hear!)
But before decising, I need to give you all the information. If we are to work together, as I respect you as taking that final decision, you also have to respect me as the expert on legal strategies. Let me know if you disagree with that

Say that convinced and high power.

Solid delivery, defend your speaking time until you're done if someone interrupts you, and make sure you finish the whole spiel in a way that's clear to all.

Of course it was easy for me to type that and it wasn't easy to come up with it on the fly.

However, you don't need perfection and once you follow the basic structure, it's easier to get it "right enough" (there's also an example in PU of enforcing boundaries in a far from perfect manner, but still "good enough" by following the basic structure).

This goes back to the fundamentals.
It's a case of enforcing boundaries with a WIIFT and collaborative frame:

1. Agree / align to avoid a total rapport break
   1. But without submitting / taking a step back
2. Re-empower yourself
   1. Re-state your role as the legal strategist (what he was trying to deny you: if you allow them, you're too low power to work for them)
3. Frame it as "good for them", so it's easier for them to accept your push-back
4. Re-state that you respect their final making decision
5. Demand they respect your authority back (see the difference, now it's part of a power-fair give-and-take)
6. Empower them to agree with you (very leader like, while also also re-empowering them)

This works with most people.

Exceptions are people who are SO much about power that they prefer dominating others even at the cost of losing.
However, you power protect enough here that even for those people it's easy to say "OK".

So unless they prioritize power SO much more than self-preservation (most people, even high-power people prioritize self-preservation) they will be happy to say "yes".

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on November 16, 2022, 5:48 am

And as for the root cause:

I think what precipitated the issue here is that they were given the "best course of action" that didn't align with what they wanted.

Or, at least, with what they thought they wanted.

That's why the push-back.

Better instead to wait a bit to learn more about the room and their preferred scenarios, then slowly move them towards the best resolution.

Not a lawyer, but one may even simply ask it:

Do you have any preferred course of action as of now?

After they reply, you can say that "all options are still on the table".
Then say that your goal is to provide them with the likelihood of each one of them, and help them decide for the best course of action for them.

Let them agree, then explain each option until they more and more come to agree with you on the best resolution.

Quote from B on November 16, 2022, 10:27 am

Thank you so much Lucio,

your posts hit the nail on the head.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on November 16, 2022, 5:38 am

Otherwise, this is higher odds of working on the case:

Client: No you should defend us, and we/I do the strategy which I'm perfectly capable of doing myself. Otherwise we're wasting time here.

Me: Yes, you're the final decision maker on what we do and I absolutely respect that (<----align first).
But maybe we're not clear on what "defending" means. Allow me to clarify how I see my role when it comes to defending. To me defending you means help you to do and decide what's best for you. What gives you the highest chance of winning (<----use strong keywords, you're there to help them win. The best decision, even if means paying, is still winning).
That may mean fighting in court, or it may not.
And yes, you'll be the final decision maker on that. And if you decide to fight, I'll fight the hardest for you to win (<---- give me what he wants to hear!)
But before decising, I need to give you all the information. If we are to work together, as I respect you as taking that final decision, you also have to respect me as the expert on legal strategies. Let me know if you disagree with that

Say that convinced and high power.

Solid delivery, defend your speaking time until you're done if someone interrupts you, and make sure you finish the whole spiel in a way that's clear to all.

Of course it was easy for me to type that and it wasn't easy to come up with it on the fly.

However, you don't need perfection and once you follow the basic structure, it's easier to get it "right enough" (there's also an example in PU of enforcing boundaries in a far from perfect manner, but still "good enough" by following the basic structure).

This goes back to the fundamentals.
It's a case of enforcing boundaries with a WIIFT and collaborative frame:

1. Agree / align to avoid a total rapport break
   1. But without submitting / taking a step back
2. Re-empower yourself
   1. Re-state your role as the legal strategist (what he was trying to deny you: if you allow them, you're too low power to work for them)
3. Frame it as "good for them", so it's easier for them to accept your push-back
4. Re-state that you respect their final making decision
5. Demand they respect your authority back (see the difference, now it's part of a power-fair give-and-take)
6. Empower them to agree with you (very leader like, while also also re-empowering them)

This works with most people.

Exceptions are people who are SO much about power that they prefer dominating others even at the cost of losing.
However, you power protect enough here that even for those people it's easy to say "OK".

So unless they prioritize power SO much more than self-preservation (most people, even high-power people prioritize self-preservation) they will be happy to say "yes".

This is top-notch, it would have worked for sure and also generated a better "aftertaste".

Some of this I thought was "implicit", and some of this I didn't fully realize. I can study it and get a mental feel for the steps. And then try it again if this presents again.

Reading you makes me understand I seem to still have an unconscious "dichotomy" in my mind about these things. I thought, I either push back or reempower him. But I should have done both, and should have suggested the connection between my reempowering and his/their reempowering. My solution was much less "fluid".

Your comments on the root cause are also spot on. Basically:

• I wasn't wrong in wanting to put the issue on the table;
• but I still did it too soon (in terms of letting them express their opinion first)
• so I should have let them express their position before going to (both my estimation of the likeliest outcome, and) my consequent suggestion
• I should also have pre-framed the discussion as "us wanting to get all the options on the table for them to decide", rather than "me giving them the best option at this time for them to think about".

I see my mistake. I can do this, for future cases.

By reading your posts, I realize a significant part of the issue derives from an unintentional person-discussion mismatch:

• I had already done two other calls on this with one of the clients, with whom I have a better relationship;
• but the person who interjected above was another, and had not taken part in those two calls
• so it's possible I unconsciously had thought I had pre-framed the call, but with only one of the people involved
• knowing that other people would be present in the final call should have led me to re-start the "pre-framing" from scratch.

In essence, he probably felt "excluded" from the reasoning that had led to this call.

The irony is that they "wanted" me to have the above call only with one of them, and I was the one who suggested to speak with everybody present.

And the irony is also that he is a very difficult person to speak with: curt, abrupt, forceful, oppositional. So I guess it happens often that people may exclude him.

Quote from B on November 22, 2022, 5:07 pm

Abuse based on exploiting the private/public dichotomy

Here are two different but similar abuse techniques I have personally been subject to for a long time without understanding them.

They were used instinctively by one particular person formerly in my life.

Abuse in private, followed by "giving rope" and "acting submissive" in public

While at a group event, this person would call me to his room to ask or tell me something. He would then criticize me or insult or belittle me.

I would get angry, and then he would quickly go back to the others.

Then I would go to the group and do to him the same he had done to me, but in public.

He would then act submissive and not say anything. I remember him even looking down and making  a sad face.

I now realize the bystanders likely thought I was unnecessarily nasty.

They only saw me acting nasty and making sarcastic remarks, and since they had not seen what this person had done, I would instantly be painted as the nasty guy.

They likely thought I was nuts.

I remember one particular situation where this happened, and one of the other persons present got extremely angry at me. And at the time I couldn't understand why.

What I should have done instead: 

I should have probably either dealt with his abuse in private and then acted even more kindly at him in public (which would have likely irritated him and led him to blow his cover), or told everyone what he had just said and then act surprised and deflated myself in front of everyone.

Abuse in public, preceded or followed by praising my achievements

This same person would often praise my achievements to others, and then belittle me by telling stories from my youth when I was scared, afraid or acted as a kid. For example, a story he would routinely tell everyone present was me running around scared of insects while on a countryside hike.

I now realize that the fact he praised my achievements publicly not only allowed him to "claim credit" for those achievements, as I had already understood, but also allowed him to alter public perception to better mask his abuse. People saw a person praising me, and then telling a little-out-of-place-story.

The praise acted as a preemptive mask for the abuse, as it made more likely for others to believe he was just telling the story out of an innocent, if out of place, reminiscence. But my social standing was still severely harmed.

What I should have done instead: 

I should have first blew his "praise cover" by stating I was "surprised of his words", since "in private he never praised me for anything".

Then I could have dealt with the public belittling effectively, by using one of the techniques for microaggression.

---

The fact that this person had eventually started doing these things in my work contexts (in the presence of other clients, potential clients, etc.) was exactly one of the circumstances that later led to my awakening.

I started feeling something was severely off and getting more and more flustered.

One other note: when I recently tried to describe his abuse to another person, I wasn't believed.

I now understand why I wasn't believed: the covert nature of the abuse led everyone to think I was the nasty one. For years.

Quote from B on November 22, 2022, 8:05 pm

Some sparse thoughts:

• verbalizing a lack of trust in another person, I think, will lead that person to also lose trust in the speaker; if one has to protect from betrayals, best do it while mentioning other reasons, and not the real reason;
• lawyers are now probably asking me to connect on LinkedIn not because I'm cool, but just because when they read I have a "pratice", they assume I may be able to provide work opportunities;
• from a purely utilitaristic point of view, refusing to interact with a past abuser makes no sense when one has gained the capacity to protect himself. Even if one suffered much in the past at the hands of a person, one may have more to gain by accepting new interactions, provided one can avoid new betrayals. But maybe there are cases where the suffering was so much that no rational utilitaristic calculus can override the closure.

Quote from B on November 22, 2022, 10:52 pm

And I'm also coming to this other conclusion:

• never, ever, accept any feedback or learning from a person who is adopting a social climbing or manipulating frame.

It is simply impossible for a manipulative person to give feedback that is aimed at bettering the position of the other. The feedback will always be slanted toward the (unwitting or malicious, it's the same) aim of the manipulator.

I used to think that feedback from a frenemy or from a manipulative person was better than nothing. I used to think that asserting myself and possibly losing the "support" of these people would have left me worse off, and would have led me to not learn anymore.

Now my thinking is basically the opposite: better to start alone, from nothing, try various ideas, fail them all, and eventually stumble across what works, than to listen to a manipulative person.

And better to assert one's rights to respectful and honest communication, even at the price of losing the help of a toxic person, than not doing anything.

If one tries and makes a mistake, he learns something.

On the contrary, asking for the help of a manipulative person not only never works, but is counterproductive: it can set one back for decades.

And if one asserts oneself and loses the other person: well, that's proof in itself of the malice of the other, and that nothing good would ever have come from the relation.

Because normal, honest, empathetic people listen to assertiveness, and prefer respecting boundaries rather than losing the asserter.

The only thing I am finding I learned by keeping these people in my life for years is how they manipulate.

On closure

I will never get closure from a manipulative person. Even if it is a close person.

I ultimately have to find my closure for myself. Nothing I say or do can make some people realize they treated me badly.

I have to accept that my past suffering was useless, and avoidable, and I lost something very important.

I used to think suffering was a way of fortifying oneself, David Goggins' style. I used to think it was a honor to stand up for what was right openly, even in the face of abuse and public pushback.

Now I understand it's simply useless, and it derives from being unaware and low-power.

And no one will ever repay me for what I lost.

I have to accept it. And finally be free.

And forget revenge.

They will all pay their abuse by remaining without me.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on November 23, 2022, 4:39 am

Thank you for sharing this, Bel!

I'm thinking if that "say nice things to cover up the nasty ones" could deserve its own name/technique.

It might.

One note on it though, and not to defend that person, but only to put things in perspective: by praising your recent achievement, you may still end up with a better reputation even though he then later undermines you with the old story.

That's because recent achievement > old story of kid's fears.

Sure, it's not like that at a personal level where you expect people close to you to never belittle -especially when we were most vulnerable-.
So he destroys the relationship with you, albeit on the other hand in terms of reputation with clients, you may still gain.

Quote from B on November 23, 2022, 9:57 pm

It might be a form of manipulative building up.

In fact I think I got the dynamic by reflecting on your recent posts / articles on manipulative building up.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on November 24, 2022, 4:33 am

Quote from Bel on November 23, 2022, 9:57 pm

It might be a form of manipulative building up.

In fact I think I got the dynamic by reflecting on your recent posts / articles on manipulative building up.

Certainly possible.

In this specific case, you were there,  so you most surely know better about which one mattered more.

Mine was a perspective based on the general dynamics (ie.: "effect of the build-up minus the effect of the undermining = net effect).
But for the specific situation, you know better.

Also, if it's a family member or close person, there's often little justification for the tear-down and potentially embarrassing kid story, no matter how small it was.