We went to a faraway court today.
Today's session was to seek clarification on the consent order. It was in another state down South.
On the last date, there was a mediation. My client and his wife had negotiated, and they had reached an agreement. The court applauded them because they had settled the matter amicably. The lawyers shook hands. Everyone was smiling. The court announced a consent order.
 |
| We win and lose in life. That's normal. But we have to learn something from the experience. |
Then we took the long drive back. The sky was darkening. It was nearly night. I congratulated my client. He smiled and mentioned that he was happy to have locked in "three times a month". His visitation rights.
I didn't know what he was talking about. Was it part of the order?
He insisted that it was. I said that we would check. I hadn't heard it.
The next day was a Friday. We received the draft order. There was no mention of "three times a month". It was a Friday, and the court was closed. We could not check with the court.
So, we amended the draft order to include the words "three times a month".
We wrote letters to the court and to the other side to ask whether there was "three times a month".
Finally the court suggested clarification.
Then the day came. Today.
We went to court. We met the other side's lawyer. She seemed a little distant. And she didn't take well to my joke about Lee Chong Wei not getting the gold.
She said that we would go with whatever the court's record showed.
The court had no record of "three times a month". The court explained that it had been part of the discussions, but it wasn't part of the order.
I explained that I, too, had not heard "three times a month". But I was obliged to raise the matter because my client insisted that he had heard it.
The record was set straight. The consent order was rectified.
 |
| It doesn't matter whether other people understand us, as long as they EVENTUALLY understand us. What are you doing to make other people understand you? |
The lady for the other side told me that she was angry when she saw me.
But she wasn't angry anymore. Not after she had heard our explanation.
She was angry before, because she did not understand what we were doing.
She was angry before, because she thought that the clients had settled and we were causing trouble.
She was angry before, because we did not explain to her that our client insisted that he had heard "three times a month".
She smiled as she walked us to the court entrance. Then she remembered that she had another client waiting for her in the court canteen, and she went her way.
What I learned from the experience
I was wondering why the lady seemed distant and unwilling to make eye contact when she first arrived. She was very business-like at first. She thawed after we settled the matter.
Then I realised that she hadn't understood our actions. She probably thought that we were causing problems for her. Unnecessary problems. She must have thought that we had a deal and we agreed on its terms, so why change it?
She was right to feel that way. I forgot to tell her what my client told me. I should have called her. It might have helped. Who knows.
I thought we made it clear in the letters, but experts say that communication is only 35% based on verbal cues. The other 65% is non-verbal.
I thought we made it clear in the letters, but experts say that communication is only 35% based on verbal cues. The other 65% is non-verbal.
The first lesson for today is: Help others to understand your actions so that they don't misunderstand and get angry with you.
 |
| Non-verbal communication comprises 65% of our communications. That means you should talk to people. Don't just send an e-mail. |
I thought a bit about that lady.
She was brave to tell me that she was angry. That helped to explain some of her behaviour.
Ever had an ex-girlfriend who said, "You pissed me off today!" And when you ask what it is, she says, "You should know!" Ever had that experience?
Sometimes people genuinely do not know what they have done wrong. They didn't mean to piss you off.
Explaining why you are angry will help the other person to understand why you got angry. And then the other guy can start to address the real problem.
Sometimes when others ask you why you are angry, don't say "I'm not angry." Not if you want to prevent the problem from recurring. Imagine how frustrating it is for the asker: "Are you angry with me?" "No, I'm not angry." (Face turns red.) "But you look like you're angry with me. Is everything OK?" "I'm not angry with you." (Face getting redder.)
How is anyone going to deal with the real problem if you deny it, yet you're fuming beneath the surface? It's going to be difficult unless you're a good guesser.
So, the second lesson is: You need to explain why you are angry so that others can understand you.
Thanks for reading.
Here are some other pieces from me.
No comments:
Post a Comment