Quote from B on November 20, 2021, 2:49 pm

Thank you Matthew. I have to admit my control is mostly logical for now; maintaining contact while escalating pressure with this person is a bit stressful to me. But I’ll do it, and it’ll become easier with time. Let's see what happens, I'll keep you posted how it goes.

Quote from B on November 23, 2021, 10:55 am

Incredibly, I received the data yesterday evening.

I am waiting a bit before sending her the invoice, because I am starting to understand that appearing a bit disinterested works in my favor; also thinking about whether to send her a normal or certified email with the reissued invoice.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on November 23, 2021, 2:17 pm

Good, potentially a first good sign of playing it straight.

I would not send a certified email now.

Because:

1. Reward good signs and play it to win: Yes, it might be a false start. But for now she did her part. Reward it rather than punishing it. Try to take a step forward, rather than a defensive step backward -yes, even if that might cost you down the line-.
2. You'd come across sneaky, risk it by playing win-win: She told you via phone that "you don't send certified emails to colleagues" -something that, if it wasn't for her games that righteously called for it, I'd totally agree with-.
   You (tacitly) accepted that frame with the "email troubles cover", such as when you said you sent it because she was not receiving emails (a fair move, BTW, not criticizing that, just discussing consequences)
   If you send another certified email now after the phone call clarification you come across as sneaky.
   The only way you could send a certified email now and still act eagle-style high-power is if you had said "I sent a certified because I need to ensure my bill gets paid".

Yes, not sending a certified email might cost you later on.
But in my opinion, it costs more to send one. Both strategically, and in self-signaling.

My personal point of view.
This is 30% power dynamics, and 70% about personal choices of behavior and who you decide to be.
So feel free to fully disagree.

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on November 23, 2021, 4:33 pm

You'd come across sneaky, risk it by playing win-win: She told you via phone that "you don't send certified emails to colleagues" -something that, if it wasn't for her games that righteously called for it, I'd totally agree with-.
You (tacitly) accepted that frame with the "email troubles cover", such as when you said you sent it because she was not receiving emails (a fair move, BTW, not criticizing that, just discussing consequences)
If you send another certified email now after the phone call clarification you come across as sneaky.
The only way you could send a certified email now and still act eagle-style high-power is if you had said "I sent a certified because I need to ensure my bill gets paid".

Do you think perception/reputation in being clean and straight matters when dealing with manipulative people?
I will give a shot at my own question.

As Lucio advised, I feel perception matters because you implicitly show that you want to get things done in a direct and honest way.
Fast and efficient without any games.
The bottom-line, no-nonsense attitude comes across as high-power.

She may even regret thinking about her own manipulation and start to see the collaborative opportunities.
Although it is hard to say as some individuals have an entrenched manipulative mindset to win.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can send a certified email in the future to escalate.

Quote from B on November 23, 2021, 7:28 pm

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on November 23, 2021, 2:17 pm

Good, potentially a first good sign of playing it straight.

I would not send a certified email now.

Because:

1. Reward good signs and play it to win: Yes, it might be a false start. But for now she did her part. Reward it rather than punishing it. Try to take a step forward, rather than a defensive step backward -yes, even if that might cost you down the line-.
2. You'd come across sneaky, risk it by playing win-win: She told you via phone that "you don't send certified emails to colleagues" -something that, if it wasn't for her games that righteously called for it, I'd totally agree with-.

Thank you Lucio, your help and perspective is invaluable. I have decided to send a normal email, and did not even refer to my desire to be paid quickly; let's see what happens.

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on November 23, 2021, 4:33 pm

Do you think perception/reputation in being clean and straight matters when dealing with manipulative people?

I struggle with this same question: at what point you should stop "playing fair" with someone who wants to manipulate you? And, considering that manipulation also exacts a psychological toll on the manipulated party, which increases the damage to more than just the economic value "stolen", is it fair to react more strongly than an external observer would consider necessary on the pure basis of the imbalance in "value exchange"?

Some thoughts on the abstract question:

• the reaction should probably and ideally be calibrated based on how an "external observer" sees things, i.e. not taking into account the psychological impact of the manipulation;
• it would be preferable to keep integrity while still being able to "fight" manipulators successfully, but I am not so sure it is always possible nor even desirable;
• some things are inside "integrity", some others are not; keeping one's (unwritten) word, for example, depends on whether someone tricked you into giving it or not, on what he intends to do after you do what you "promised", on what extent of "damage" he/she did to you in manipulating you, etc.; there is no integrity in keeping your word if someone intends to do harm to you or to someone else with what you (were tricked into) promising; even under the law, contracts concluded because of fraud can be voided;
• precisely because manipulators know the moves, adopting a stance similar to theirs is one of the ways one could send back the (implied) message that you know what they're doing, and will make them pay fair and legal price if they continue trying to manipulate you;
• however one decides to react to manipulation, ideally not a single trace should be left about adopting the same or a similar stance (e.g.: someone does not answer ten of your calls and sends you a message every time saying he "will call back later", but never does? You can also stop answering his calls, but you instead don't send any messages);
• the best ultimate course of action to me is to simply remove myself from continuing to interact with manipulative people.

On the specific case:

• while I personally agree that sending certified emails to colleagues should be avoided, this is not a bar rule, but more of a matter of social courtesy; so my take here is: if you play fair, I maintain social courtesy; but if you start "not receiving" my emails, I have no qualms making sure you receive them;
• in this case, to me she has already shown her real nature, and I do not want to cooperate with her in the future;
• she does not know that I don't want to keep working with her in the future; me not sending her a certified email now gives the appearance of me wanting to continue being in good terms with her;
• she could try to morally shame me for sending another certified e-mail, and I would then have to push back more strongly than in the previous call;
• the cost I face if she plays the "did not receive it" game is mainly a time cost; I can definitely escalate again in the future with another certified e-mail;
• lastly, independently of the means used to communicate, it is risky for a lawyer to falsely state he/she did not receive a communication from a colleague.

Not sending a certified email also allows me to evaluate and learn: if my email is still "not received", in a similar situation in the future I may adopt a different stance.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on November 24, 2021, 3:21 am

Exactly, something Matthew said and I forgot to mention:

You can send a certified letter later on.

Even aside from the personality / character discussion, starting with the tough line from the start, and right after she abided by the terms you agreed on and made a step towards you is not the best strategy.

I'll leave the general / abstract for another thread and keep it focused on the specific situation for now.

As Bel says:

Quote from Bel on November 23, 2021, 7:28 pm

On the specific case:

• in this case, to me she has already shown her real nature, and I do not want to cooperate with her in the future;
• she does not know that I don't want to keep working with her in the future; me not sending her a certified email now gives the appearance of me wanting to continue being in good terms with her;
• she could try to morally shame me for sending another certified e-mail, and I would then have to push back more strongly than in the previous call;
• the cost I face if she plays the "did not receive it" game is mainly a time cost; I can definitely escalate again in the future with another certified e-mail;
• lastly, independently of the means used to communicate, it is risky for a lawyer to falsely state he/she did not receive a communication from a colleague.

Not sending a certified email also allows me to evaluate and learn: if my email is still "not received", in a similar situation in the future I may adopt a different stance.

Exactly.
Spoken like a true social strategist, better than I could have put it myself :).

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on November 24, 2021, 10:07 am

I struggle with this same question: at what point you should stop "playing fair" with someone who wants to manipulate you? And, considering that manipulation also exacts a psychological toll on the manipulated party, which increases the damage to more than just the economic value "stolen", is it fair to react more strongly than an external observer would consider necessary on the pure basis of the imbalance in "value exchange"?

In my opinion, the general idea would be to create a perception that collaborating with you would generate more net value (benefits - costs) than competing/manipulating/dominating you.
Generally, the ideal would be creating such perception for both the immediate short-term and the long-term.

So showing the intention to collaborate is a form of leverage (you can provide value for her).
You already showed your willingness to escalate/compete (you can incur costs for her).

Now you display the collaborative side of you to urge her in the collaborative direction.
Works on a rational and emotional level (warmth + letting her feel a sense of freedom of choice).

In this case, by being warmer (not sending a certified email) after being tough,

• in the short-term, she thinks you would continue to work with her on the civil case, and
• possibly, in the longer term, on other cases as well

If you send the certified email,

• she may think that you don't trust her, plans to collect the payment and not work on the case further, and
• also probably not work with her in the future as you (Bel) advised

Sometimes, there's a time and place for escalation all the way when the payoff for you is huge.
If the payment is millions of dollars for example. (maybe you're a billionaire, then this will be small)

So maybe, if you can make much more money and destroy her completely in a civil lawsuit, then that may be a suitable course of action as well.
Although there's a lot of risks like losing the case, making an enemy, losing more time & money, etc.

Quote from B on November 24, 2021, 3:33 pm

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on November 24, 2021, 10:07 am

In my opinion, the general idea would be to create a perception that collaborating with you would generate more net value (benefits - costs) than competing/manipulating/dominating you.

I agree in principle. But, in my personal experience, and especially with reference to long-term, even if you create this perception things are not going to change much. Most of the people who manipulate do so because they have personality disorders. They have a disorder that makes them want to "win" at all costs, and they are not content with a win-win cooperation even when such cooperation would give them more than what they could obtain by win-lose.

Many of them would probably prefer lose-lose to win-win. And, even assuming you could convince them to go win-win in the short term, they would live their entire relationship with you always looking for an angle to score a big win-lose in the long term. In essence, you would have to guard your back all the time, and that's not a good way to live.

Quote from B on November 24, 2021, 8:06 pm

Guys I want to really thank you for your help.

It is one year that I am having continuous new understandings about how I let people manipulate me so far, and it's not been easy. Asking for help to the people I knew in real life, who mostly were like this, always got me into more trouble.

I also did not mention that when she got angry on whatsapp she tried to have me called by two partners of her law firm, which is the same from which I got out. So she tried to use social-professional pressure on me as well, and of course she probably painted a slanted picture to them about what was going on here. I am feeling a bit down, I cannot shake from my mind that she is probably going to continue playing games, and cannot stop thinking whether I gave her any openings to do so far.

So thank you very much Lucio and Matthew, I feel less alone here.