 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
I learned a valuable lesson while still an articling student. At a lunch with my mentor Hank I ordered a tea. As I like it a certain strength, I said to the waiter, one Jean Pierre, “Bag out please.” He returned and after putting the teapot and cup down, removed the teabag from the teapot. I reminded him that I asked for the bag out. He seemed surprised, exclaiming the bag was out. Hank smiled like the Cheshire Cat. He said, “You just learned a basic lesson in communicating. Be as specific. We are all wired differently. As long as this human condition persists, lawyers will be kept busy.”
I thought about the sage Albert Einstein, who said on communicating, “If you can’t explain it to a six-year-old, you don’t understand it well enough.”
I believed I understood exactly how I wanted my tea. I wanted to dip the teabag myself. But I did not say that. This little incident raised my articulation antennae going forward.
I had a motor vehicle case once where my client referred me to a key witness, Roger. Roger was one of my client’s close pub friends. I asked Roger whether he had consumed any alcohol prior to the accident. He replied, “Oh yeah. I had a few straight shots of scotch.” After slapping my forehead, I called my client to report this possible hurdle. The client insisted Roger’s drinking interlude occurred after the accident. Confused, I called Roger again and behold, he thought the word “prior” meant after. Presumably, Roger was never an active participant in contributing to the Wikipedia dictionary.
We lawyers often overwhelm our clients with lawyer talk. I once was responding to a motion to dismiss my client’s action by summary judgment, i.e., before trial. My client Vlad was a hard-nosed construction worker and he expected kick ass no-nonsense service. Vlad originated from eastern Europe and spoke English OK, but any lawyer lingo would lose him.
We met together with Harold, a newly called lawyer assisting me.
Harold started explaining the motion to Vlad but without reading our client at all. His discourse went something like, “Routinely a legal dispute results in a trier of fact determining the merits of the claim on viva voce evidence. However pursuant to Rule 21, subsections 1 to 3(c) of the Consolidated Rules of Practice and Procedure, a party may launch a motion for a final order dispensing with a hearing of witnesses in persona and to have the cause of action adjudicated upon via a summary ruling based on documentary argument …”
Vlad rolled his eyes and snapped impatiently at Harold, “Enough! Quiet! You talk too much! Like politician.”
I thought it wise for me to take over the briefing. I asked Harold to let me continue and meanwhile to get us some tea. (At least he already knew how I liked my tea).
I subsequently had a talk with Harold. I’m not confident he understood the lesson. A few days later he asked a client whether she owned her house in fee simple.
During my years of practice I was always determined to make sure what was being said was understood. I would always use the simplest words, especially with clients, saying instead of lessor, “landlord,” instead of affidavit, sworn document and instead of asking for a retainer, I asked for some money. Clients understood that. And I never used the term “pro bono.” I did not want to chance giving the clients ideas.
Some words suggesting understanding may seem helpful but aren’t. Such as “you know.” “You must always tell the truth you know.”
“Oh really? I didn’t know that.”
Nor do we here as Canadians have a unique comprehension silver bullet with the word, “eh.”
LAWYER; You understand this 40-page separation agreement?
CLIENT: “Not exactly”
LAWYER (Canadian version) You understand this 40-page separation agreement, eh?
CLIENT: Ahhh, of course. Crystal clear.
I would always repeat the gist of my discussions and ask if they were understood. One client, a former army colonel, responded with an interesting phrase, “copy that.” He explained that it is used in the military to signify that the discussion is understood. I started using it too, but I soon dropped it as too often I had to explain to my puzzled listeners what it meant. They rarely copied that.
A phrase I often heard to my delight was “I got it.” Sometimes clients would use an elevated version, namely “I totally got it.” I was satisfied with either version.
The colonel also explained another expression for acknowledging understanding and this was “Roger.” I did use this one more often given my positive association of the word with that witness I mentioned, prior.
We lawyers often shove documents in front of our clients asking them to sign them. I never used those stickie strips saying, “sign here.” I felt it put undue pressure on the clients. The stickies may as well have read, “I’m Don Corleone. If you know what’s good for you, sign.”
I will add that Harold used to call clients in to “execute” documents. Harold taught me an important lesson. And that is how not to communicate.
As lawyers we must be careful with our words. I actually tested Hank’s lesson by returning to that restaurant and saying to Jean Pierre, “One tea please. Just put the bag on the side; I’ll dip it myself.” It worked.
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging is now available in paper and e-book versions where books are sold. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him @MarcelsHumour.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to The Lawyer’s Daily, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.