Latest / It’s All Your Fault: High Conflict People / Civil Communications for Lawyers and Law Offices
Transcript
- Speaker 1 (00:04): Welcome to, it's All Your Fault On True Story fm, the one and only podcast dedicated to helping you identify and deal with the most challenging human interactions, those with someone who may have a high conflict personality. I'm Megan Hunter and I'm here with my co-host, bill Eddie. Hi everybody. We are the co-founders of the High Conflict Institute in San Diego, California where we focus on training, consulting, and educational programs and methods, all to do with high conflict. In today's episode, we have a special guest who will introduce in a minute. We're very excited to have her with us, and we're going to talk about communication in the legal field, which is interesting, not just for those who are in that field, but also for anyone who would ever use the services of those in the legal field, which really pretty much encompasses just about everyone in some way, whether you retain an attorney or not. So listen in and find out why and how and what this is about. We're going to talk about a new book called Biff for Lawyers and Law Offices. But first, a couple of notes. Send your high conflict related questions to podcast@highconflictinstitute.com or on our website@highconflictinstitute.com slash podcast where you'll also find all the show notes and links for today's discussion. Speaker 1 (01:32): Alright, so with that, let's get going. We're going to talk about a brand new book that's coming out in January, 2024. It's another book in our series about conflict communication. And if any of you, all of you listeners out there who we're always so grateful for what bfi, you've heard us talk about it a lot, and this is yet another Biff book, our newest and greatest, and Bill has a brand new co-author on this one who we're really excited to introduce. So please meet Rihanna Jamal, who is joining us today, and is the co-author on this book, Biff for Lawyers and Law Offices. So Rihanna, I could say a lot about you. I'll just briefly say how we met you and then I'd like you to kind of tell us about you and what you're doing. And so Rihanna came to us through Pepperdine Law School and work with us at High Conflict Institute as an extern for a semester, almost two semesters, right? Yep. Almost two semesters. And we just really grew to respect and value her work and her insights and where she's going with her career. So Rihanna, with that, why don't you give us some background on you? Speaker 2 (02:53): Awesome. Thank you for that introduction, Megan. So yeah, just to add to that story, I was introduced to Biff and to the High Conflict Institute when I was doing my LLM program at Pepperdine Law and I was taking a class called the Psychology of Conflict Communication and was introduced to Bill Eddie, not in person, but through his books and fell in love with the content and the material and reached out to you all and was like, I would love to work with you guys. And it ended up being a great working relationship and has continued by way of background, I used to be an immigration attorney in New York City and decided I wanted to transition and focus more on conflict resolution, which is what brought me to Pepperdine to work on my LLM, Speaker 1 (03:39): Which is what's an LLM Speaker 2 (03:41): Essentially for people who are domestic attorneys in the us it's adding a fourth year of law school, basically. Speaker 1 (03:49): Okay, interesting. Speaker 2 (03:50): Yeah, and it's a way to specialize as well, and it was how I specialized in conflict resolution. Speaker 1 (03:56): Very good. And what have you been doing since graduating? Speaker 2 (03:58): So I have been working with you all, which has been great, and I have also been working with the Western Justice Center and the Western Justice Center is an organization based in Los Angeles that creates and implements conflict resolution programming in schools and communities all throughout Los Angeles. So I'm really doing this work, but from a more youth perspective now. Speaker 1 (04:23): Wow, that's exciting. And we'd loved having you as our extern for a whole year and really happy to have you continuing to work with us. And it's refreshing for Bill and I to work with someone in a younger generation, not that we're old yet ish. Speaker 3 (04:38): Careful. Careful, Speaker 1 (04:40): Exactly. But it's just nice to see and I guess invigorating to see that there are people like you in your age group that are just very invigorated about this and want to carry on the work of conflict resolution, which as you know, is very much needed. So it's exciting you're working with young people and instilling restorative justice principles and conflict resolution early in their lives. Cool. Alright, so let's talk about the book Bill. What gave you the idea? I mean, I guess we should start with for new listeners explaining what Biff is and then let's talk about why you specifically focused on the legal profession. Speaker 3 (05:30): Okay. Well basically a year before you and I, Megan founded High Conflict Institute in 2007, we started kind of giving some ad hoc seminars and trainings and what you called high conflict institutes in I think it was six different cities. And the first one we did was in Phoenix in March of 2007. We had about 20 lawyers, therapists and a couple judges and basically focused on family law and high conflict in family law. And in the middle of it, one of the judges raises their hands and says, well, what are we going to do about these awful emails that the parents send to each other? And at that point I had 2007, I was going on 15 years as a family lawyer after 12 years as a family therapist. And so I already developed a style, but I hadn't really organized it as a style. Speaker 3 (06:36): And I said, well, it has to be brief. If you have to teach them, they'd go on and on and on, just get themselves deeper and deeper into trouble. And it has to be just straight information. Pick up Johnny at 5:00 PM at the school or at the karate program or whatever it is. And I said, it should be friendly. Just have a friendly tone. Thank you for telling me your concerns or thanks for bringing this to my attention. And they said, well, that spells Biff, BIF said if you have another F, you've got a name Biff. And I said, well, it needs to be firm, it needs to end the hostilities. Just kind of put an end to that. Speaker 1 (07:18): Oh, you mean it doesn't mean funny. The last F isn't for funny. Speaker 3 (07:22): Usually they're funny before you make them into a Biff when people say all these nasty comments that are so absurd. Anyway, so we liked it. We started teaching it as a method and it's just exploded. So I think this lawyer book is the fourth fifth book now that we have targeted specifically to lawyers. And your question about why did I think this was needed? I've always been concerned when I went from being a therapist to being a lawyer, my first year of law practice, I just got emails and letters and just comments and everything that were like the most disgusting I'd ever experienced. It reminded me of being on the playground when I was eight years old. And lawyers have a reputation for that, speaking really in disparaging terms to clients, to the public, et cetera, but also to each other, which really reinforces it. Speaker 1 (08:26): But why did they do that? I mean because I've heard some lawyers talk behind the scenes and they feel like it's something they have to do. Speaker 3 (08:36): Yeah, first of all, it's ridiculous and unnecessary and I would suggest that at least 80% of lawyers don't communicate that way. But the 10 to 20% that do get a lot of exposure, a lot of attention. And my experience was it was the same lawyers writing nasty stuff over and over again and that it wasn't 80%. A lot of people say, well, lawyers a disgusting occupation or whatever, but they like their own lawyer. And I think the reason why is everyone's exposed to the worst in general, but when they're dealing with their own lawyer, most of the time they're dealing with someone that's pretty reasonable. And that's what I found. Most people don't realize that something like 98% of court cases end up in settlements and it ends up in settlements because lawyers can talk to each other and help their clients talk to each other. Speaker 3 (09:37): And also a lot of mediation, like what Rihanna's into, and I just want to add a couple words about Rihanna right here is it's very exciting having her working with us on this book and other projects because I got into law because I wanted to do mediation and I practiced law for 15 years and primarily family courts. But my goal really was out of court conflict resolution. And I'm so excited to see how that has grown over the 30 years since I've been a lawyer. And to see newer attorneys get into that as their primary emphasis, the court, the adversarial process is really not where most disputes get resolved. And yet lawyers are mostly trained for court in the adversarial process. So I think what Han is doing, and I was also teaching that course at Pepperdine, is to really expand the use of more appropriate dispute resolution. Speaker 3 (10:44): And so I'm real excited to have you on board Rihanna and do this book with you. So I guess the last thing, coming back to why doing the book, I realized I was getting a lot of nasty emails and the profession was struggling with this. And I remember we had an associate justice from the California Supreme Court come and speak to our lawyers in 1996. I think it was about civility. Well, it hasn't gotten better, but again, I think it's 80% of the lawyers are doing a good job, but they don't know how to respond to some of the hostility. And that's where the Biff response method really helps them. But it also is to heighten, I hope that this heightens the standards for lawyer communication in the field so that the more high conflict lawyers realize I've got to rein it in or I'm sticking out like a sore of thumb. Speaker 2 (11:44): It's a way for people to pause as well, because oftentimes it's, you get this email, and I know that I've had this experience many times is you get a really hostile or angry email and you want to automatically be reactionary. And that's what I love about Biff. It gives you that tool and that moment to pause before you engage and then the interaction becomes completely different after that. Speaker 1 (12:07): Right, right. Yeah. And we're in such a fast paced world and we all have so much to do. We have other clients and a meeting and got to get to court and got to get to that mediation. So I think sometimes we rush through things and we are reactive in those moments and just, oh, don't take that pause. And you're right, Biff does force you to take the pause, which takes some discipline. So if we think about this from a lawyer's perspective, I mean if you're a lawyer listening to this or solicitor anyone in the legal profession, exactly what Bill and Han are talking about here. But if you are not in the legal profession, but someone who you've retained and someone in the legal profession, what this can do for you is probably save you some money, right? Because emails are high conflict emails, this blaming accusatory hostile, take time. Now, even if you're responding quickly, that seems kind of opposite of what I'm saying here, but what the problem is, if you don't Biff that response, you're probably, let's say 99.99% sure you're going to get an email back that's equally hostile to the first one or more hostile. And that causes time. That takes time for you as the lawyer to respond again. So that ends up costing the clients more money. And it's hard on the attorney legal professional as well, and not just legal professionals, this book is written for people in the law offices. Speaker 3 (13:41): It isn't just the emotional escalation and the back and forth that takes time. A lot of times lawyers, reasonable lawyers go, oh, I've got to respond in detail. So you get an angry client, let's say, or an angry opposing lawyers does two or three pages of you should have done this, you should have done it. And it's not like a legal brief that's going to be filed in court. And so the lawyer spends hours preparing. And I've had people show me, so what do you think of my response? And it goes on for pages and it's like, I think I looked at the letter that you got, and I think a paragraph is all you need because a lot of it is just puffing and blowing smoke and trying to be intimidating. And you don't have to do that. And I'm especially concerned and hope this gets read a lot by first year lawyers because in your first year of law, you really don't know what the culture is, what to expect. Speaker 3 (14:45): And you start getting some nasty things because high conflict lawyers test first year, they like to harass them and see how far they can get. And so I've had people say, what do you think, bill? I've got all this detail here. I'm sure this will convince the person they're wrong. And someone that's sending you a hostile email isn't going to be convinced of anything. And so what you really need to do is shut down the conversation and supply whatever information is needed and then be done. Because all of those reactions, and no, you're the one that's being inappropriate and you've got it wrong. And all of that is a total waste of time. They don't get it, but it feeds them and you may get some more. So you're absolutely right, Megan, about saving money by using the Biff method because most of the time a BIFF response is a paragraph and that's it. And you can do that in five minutes, maybe check it with somebody and then send it out versus taking two days to write a long response. And by the way, we recommend sometimes waiting 24 hours before you send that five minute Biff, just so you don't include your angry response. Speaker 2 (16:02): And I'll also add that if a conversation is needed, which that is a real possibility, it's probably not going to be the best way to do it over email. That's why that one paragraph can also be like, let's meet in person or let's talk over the phone. And that actually makes the process go so much quicker and can have that face-to-face or voice to voice contact, which gets things done so much more quickly than over email. Speaker 3 (16:29): And you're absolutely right on that. I've had cases that were really escalating and it's like quick, we've got to start talking to each other before this gets out of control and people behave better in person over the phone by Zoom, all of that. People behave better than they do by email. The quicker you get something that needs a conversation. And I've had cases where people were angry and you talk in person, it's like, Hey, how's it going? And it just totally calms down. So we have to realize email, like you said, ruhana, it doesn't contain the full communication. It doesn't show body language, tone of voice, eye contact, all of that, which human beings we're like 80 to 90% nonverbal communicators. And so the technology we develop email doesn't necessarily work well with our brains. So absolutely right on that. Speaker 1 (17:33): So Rihanna, are you seeing this when you were in the practice of law as an immigration attorney? Did you see it Speaker 2 (17:39): There? I did. I've worked mostly in the nonprofit space and it's pretty similar across the board, whether you are in corporate law or you're in nonprofit law, it's a lot of this and it's even outside of the legal field now. I work in a lot of other spaces and I see the same type of interaction, but bringing it back to my first year of being an attorney, I definitely had this interactions, especially with opposing counsel, that was probably the space where I would get the most frustrated. And that's where I would feel like I wanted to be reactionary. And I learned the skill many years later and I thought back to if I had had this during my first year, how it would have saved me a lot of time, exactly what you're talking about and a lot of mental space because when you're engaging in this, you're thinking about it, you're getting so deep into it, you're getting into your head, you're talking to colleagues, and it's taking away from any other thing that you could probably be doing at that time, Speaker 1 (18:42): Including doing something in your personal space, your personal time on the weekend or the evening. I mean, we hear from so many people who say they're awake at night thinking and perseverating over how to respond to an email. So I really see it as time management, risk management, right? I mean, you get that letter or email either from opposing counsel or whoever it is, and sometimes we can overreact, we get reactive and want to blast back and you're in a hurry and maybe you haven't thought it all the way through, you haven't biffed it. You might put something in there that can be detrimental to your case, detrimental to your client. So I see an element of risk management. I also see an element of stress management for you as the Biff writer. Speaker 3 (19:34): Well, the stress management first, you're absolutely right. People agonize over these, and that's where if you're just writing a paragraph and it's a tight paragraph, and by the way, the more you practice this, the easier it gets. So we encourage people to practice and get used to it. I'd say probably two thirds of my communication and emails today is brief, and some of it's a thought out Biff because of a hostile email that I've received. Because you get that in this business, so you really don't absorb the stress. You don't spend as much time agonizing over what should I do? Like you said Rihanna, that your first year you didn't know about a method. Having a method just really makes it so much easier and knowing that other people are using it. And I think we figure we've taught about half a million people this method with our books and our seminars and everybody that learns it seems to like it and want to teach at least one other person. Speaker 3 (20:39): So we probably got a million people now writing with the Biff method, and it reduces stress to know that this is the good way to respond. Also, risk management, yes, you may say some things that escalate your client or escalate the other side in a case that now you have to spend a lot of time cleaning up, or now you've got somebody on the verge of suing you and you don't want that. And occasionally the hostile type of emails incite people to take action that they wouldn't take. And some people are fearful for their personal safety. It's like now this person's out to get me. Maybe I shouldn't have said that. They're a total idiot. Things like that that people are tempted to do. And let me give you a quick example that I think is good about protecting your clients. So I learned as a lawyer that I needed to run letters to the other side, the other lawyer, I need to run them by my client first before I'd send them out to make sure, is this okay with you? Speaker 3 (21:47): Is there anything we need to add to address the issue? And one day I sent a letter like that. I did it pretty hastily, and my client called me up. He said, bill, I don't have anything to add, but there's a sentence in here that if I had written it, you would tell me I should take out. And I said, oh, really? What is it? And he read the sentence to me and I was horrified, like, yes, I had written that. I think I thought I had just thought it, but apparently I wrote it and he saved me from myself with that sentence, which in his case may have escalated things, cost him some more money and maybe harmed him in terms of parenting plans because it was a parenting plan issue. So in terms of risk management for your client and for yourself is it's good to have someone else check it if you can, and just keeping the structure in mind helps you check yourself. Speaker 1 (22:48): Good. And Rihanna, bill was talking about Biff as a method. And we get this question a lot because we've kind trademarked Biff response as a way to handle high conflict communication in a civil manner. But can Biff be used as a communication method just all the time? Speaker 2 (23:09): Yeah, absolutely. So I'll say a fun anecdote is that anytime I mention that I work with the High Conflict Institute or Bill Eddie's name, I mentioned his name, the first thing people say to me is Biff. That's the first association that people have because I really think this is one of the tools that sticks with people. Speaker 1 (23:29): It does. And here's the funny bit is sometimes they think Bill's name is Biff, Speaker 3 (23:33): Right? It's a separate character. Speaker 2 (23:37): It really is, honestly. And yes, so I do trainings within schools for administrators, for teachers, for students as well. But this isn't as relevant for the students, but I actually think it could be something that we could teach and then they'll have this as they continue to go on into the world. But I've introduced this tool for school administrators and within our adult trainings and it just shows and people really, really respond well to it. And it just shows how many different contexts that this can be used in, whether it's the legal setting, whether it's the school setting, it's just anywhere where there is space for conflict. And I would argue that every space, every kind of environment now has a lot more increased conflict as we're seeing. So yeah, I can attest that within the school environment, it's been something that I think could start picking up pretty quickly. Speaker 3 (24:38): And speaking of school, we teach it in all our classes that I do at Pepperdine. And Hans filled in for me teaching the Biff section a year ago when I had to step out for an hour from my course. And so it's like, I wouldn't say it's a requirement, but it's close. And I get asked to do a one hour seminar on Zoom to a variety of law schools. And this is one of the key things that they want to know because I think every law school should teach this to their law students. So when they come out, they know right away how to deal with those awful emails they're going to get when the high conflict lawyers test them out the first year of practice. Speaker 2 (25:25): The thing is, is that conflict resolution is great in theory, and so many people are learning about it, but the main thing that people need from it, from conflict resolution and the education behind it is these tools. And that's fifth gives to people and that's what resonates I think the most with people as well. Speaker 1 (25:42): Most definitely. So in your work, I know Han you deal a lot with and help a lot of communities that have more diversity, and I'm wondering, do you see the same types of emails everywhere you go? Speaker 2 (25:58): Yeah, like I was saying before, I see a lot of it within school communities which have all sorts of populations. And it's really just the thing is that conflict is existing in so many different ways. Conflict might look different, what the source of conflict looks different, but the way it's manifesting is coming out the same where it's reactionary, it's a lot of blaming, it's a lot of kind of accusatory language. And this is where Biff really can come in. It doesn't really matter who is in conflict, what the conflict is. That's why I really love this tool and I introduce it to everyone because it pretty much speaks across the board to everybody. Speaker 3 (26:44): Let me add here, just kind of a little bit of a side comment, but two weeks ago I was giving a training for a teacher's union and one of kind of a statewide thing, and one of the states, and this is one of the things they love because they're getting so many angry emails from parents, from the community, even people on school boards, principals of schools, superintendents of schools are kind of like a lightning rod for everybody's upset these days. And so teaching them this method and having them practice, and they all said, this is harder than it seems in theory, but after they started practicing, it started getting easier. And so that's just an example. And frankly, school systems get a lot of lawsuits. And so their lawyers hopefully will have read the Biff book and help them with that. And so lawyers deal with conflict in all aspects of society. So education's just one, but we're not just talking about lawyers and how they communicate with each other, but really that they can teach their clients to use this method, whether they're in a business dispute, a school dispute, employment dispute, probate dispute, construction dispute. I can't think of an area where they can't apply this. So I think it's great what Rahan is saying, you can apply it everywhere. Speaker 2 (28:23): One quick note to what Bill said is that it is much harder than it seems. I remember seeing Biff for the first time being like, oh, I can do that. That's not a big deal. And I've shared this tool with so many people and they're like, yeah, I probably do it. And then they look at their actual responses and they're like, wow, I'm really so far off of it. So it seems really simple, but it's something that like Bill said before, you just have to keep practicing. Speaker 1 (28:47): Yes, it's discipline and making yourself do it. So when I'm training Biff, which I do probably at least once or twice a week, I'll put up an email that has some hostility and accusations and all this stuff and things, and then I put up a response and the audience reads the initial email and then the response and there's something spicy in the response and they'll say, oh no, that's not Biff. And I said, well, how do you know? Because people as humans, we like to look at something and go, oh yeah, we know right away what's Biff and what's not. And I say, okay, well, and I make it kind of nuanced, not something very overt. And so I, I'm not stern teacher that forces the students to go through the structure. Is it brief? Does it meet that criteria? Is it informative? Have you taken out opinions, arguments, blames, criticisms, all of that. Is it sticking to straight facts? Is it friendly? Does it have a friendly, I usually say a friendly open, a greeting friendly first sentence and a friendly close. Is it firm? And I kind of focus on the last sentence of the email is firm because I think that's the most confusing one for folks is the firm part. So yeah, make 'em go through that whole structure so they really see what you're saying. Rihanna, it's not as simple as it looks. Speaker 3 (30:06): Maybe pick up on the firm part. I think you're right. People are confused about that. It doesn't mean harsh. And a lot of people think I have to put something in there that's really firm, like take a stand here and make my point in a harsh manner. It's not at all what it means. Firm means that it ends the hostile conversation that you don't put any hooks out there. What do you think of that buddy? Or you're the idiot, not me. So firm is just as it end the conversation of hostility. And that might be with a question, which could be a yes or no question. Please let me know if you agree to this plan by Thursday at five or yes or no. So something like that. But it doesn't mean harsh. I want to make sure people understand that. Speaker 1 (30:55): Yeah, that's good. So with that, let's take a short break and we'll be right back. Speaker 2 (31:08): We're going to dive into some examples now from the book. And we'd love to start with one focusing on a settlement proposal. The way we'll structure this is I'll give the angry response and then Bill will walk us through what it could look like to give a response that is actually in format. Speaker 1 (31:30): A little background here before you start Rihanna, sorry to interrupt. So this is from Rena, who is the client sending to her attorney Richard and his legal assistant. Sarah is copied on it. Speaker 2 (31:44): Okay, so this is the email from Rena to her attorney, Mr. Thomas. Hey, Mr. Thomas, it's been two weeks. I'm still waiting on a copy of my settlement proposal. Where is it? Your assistant said she would send it to me a week ago after we spent weeks working on this proposal. I cannot believe you don't have the courtesy to follow up. We have had endless phone calls and meetings about this proposal, and I don't understand why it is not finalized. This is completely irresponsible. I was kindly asking you to send it to me by tonight. I thought we had a good working relationship and now I'm wondering if I can work with you again. This is unacceptable and I really don't know how to proceed from here, Rena. Speaker 3 (32:28): Okay, so let me read a first response if I'm Richard Ms. Dear Ms. Patel, I'm sure we sent the settlement agreement last week. I would advise you to recheck your mail. Our office is very timely and we're not in the practice of withholding documents. Kindly check again. So now I'm going to run that through the Biff checker. So the first question is, is that brief? Yep, that's brief. Second is, is it informative, just straight information? Well, no, it's purely defensive and blaming without providing any information about the problem. Is it friendly? Not at all. I'm using words like kindly and best, but the overall tone is passive aggressive and not friendly. Is it firm? Does it end the hostile conversation? No, it's intended to, but it's likely to trigger more negative response and escalate things. Now we have three more questions we ask, is it we call 'em the aaas advice, admonishments apologies. Speaker 3 (33:33): So does it contain advice because it's not recommended in response to an angry email? So yes, the lawyer condescendingly advises the client, is there an admonishment? Well, there's an admonishment where the lawyer places blame on the client for not looking. And then are there apologies? And this is a tricky but important area, and we talk about it at length in the book. When someone's angry with you, that's not the time to apologize to them because they're likely to use it as ammunition to escalate the conflict and say, see, you agreed it's all your fault. Because when people are really angry, they have a lot of all or nothing thinking. So if you say, well, I'm sorry this little thing happened here, what they read and they show, they print it out and show everybody you said, I'm sorry, it's all your fault and you admitted it. So we caution against doing that. And I've seen letters say from domestic violence victims where they've tried to calm down their perpetrator by saying, I'm sorry, I don't do this, I'm sorry, I don't do that. And that's really, you shouldn't have to do that. So we recommend against apologies in Biff emails. So let's try a second shot. So that's not a Biff. Speaker 1 (34:52): Let's talk for just a second about the advice. The first of the aaas. Aren't lawyers there to, I mean they're being hired to provide advice? Speaker 3 (35:00): Well, the thing is, in an angry email is usually not the time to be giving your advice that lawyers give advice all the time and they should put advice in writing. But when you have an angry email from a client like this, that's not what they're looking for. What they're looking for is to solve a problem. And so when you give advice like that, it distances you from the client and makes them feel discounted. So it's not that advice is bad for lawyers, it's just the timing and don't do it in the middle of an angry email conversation. Speaker 1 (35:35): Okay, so let's see what a different response can sound and look like. Speaker 3 (35:40): Yeah, so let's try this. Dear Ms. Patel, thank you for drawing my attention to this matter. I discovered that there was an oversight in sending you the settlement proposal. Ms. Singh was out of the office on Friday, and I didn't realize it didn't go out. I'll make sure this doesn't happen again. I'm attaching a copy of the proposal here. I'm happy to discuss any additions or modifications you would like. So let's run this through the Biff Checker again. Is that brief? Yeah, that's still brief. It's basically a paragraph. Is it informative? Yeah, it explains what happened and that it shouldn't happen again. Friendly. Yeah. Thank you for drawing this to my attention. So rather than blaming the client, I took responsibility. I checked it out and what happened was it was our error. Was it friendly? Yeah, the first sentence, was it firm? Was it designed to end the conversation to solve the issue? Speaker 3 (36:41): And it did. Now, was there any advice here? Nope. We didn't go there. No admonishments and no apologies. Now what's interesting is rather than apologizing, the attorney acknowledges the problem and explains what occurred and takes responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen again. That's different from putting the words in writing that says, I'm sorry, which then we get sent all around town and all around the person's family and friends and whatever. So I recommend you could explain what happened. Sometimes let me just add about apologies. Sometimes people want to say, I'm sorry to see you're in this situation and I recommend you say I'm saddened because that's really what you mean. But when you use the word, sorry, in print, you got to be careful. High conflict people are going to use that against you over and over and over again. So that's a brief example and that's a Biff. The second one's a Biff, Speaker 1 (37:43): Right? So let's do another one and good job, both of you. I know you work together on all of these and it's a lot of fun, right? Yeah. Speaker 3 (37:54): And let me add, we really recommend you have another set of lies on your biffs, and that's what we were able to do. Rihanna and I in doing this book, and it's funny with some of my other books, occasionally people will say, well, I think you should have said it this way. And I see what they wrote. I say, you're right. That's a good way to do it. Hopefully we caught each other, but some people listening to the podcast, reading the book might come up with an even better Biff response. So there's nothing perfect about this. It's that it's brief, informative, friendly, and firm. That's the key issue. Speaker 2 (38:32): I'd also like to add something about our Biff Check the Biff checker. That is great. The first question that Bill didn't mention this one because the response was necessary was, is a response even necessary? And I think that's where that pause comes in because sometimes you don't even need to go through the whole exercise of using the Biff checker because a response is not necessary in this situation. So I love that. That's part of the Biff checker as well. Speaker 1 (38:56): Yeah, I think we didn't have that in the original Biff checker and we've added it now because it is important. Speaker 3 (39:02): I want to also give here some credit to Megan for creating the Biff Checker because we've asked ourselves questions. What We never gave it a name and made it a routine process. And so with each of the books after the first one, I think Megan put in Biff Checker and that's really good. It helps people think about checking themselves. So want to make sure Megan gets her due credit here. Speaker 1 (39:30): Thank you. Well, I love Biff Speaker 2 (39:33): And attorneys. The way that we've been trained in law school is to kind of have systematic thinking. And I think this is why the Biff Checker worked really well for attorneys and for law offices is because there are a lot of different fields that are great and more like in the creative spaces and not that attorneys can't be creative, but the way we've been trained is to kind of have these systematic approaches. And I think that's where the Biff checker is really helpful. Speaker 1 (39:57): Oh, good. That's very good to know. Speaker 3 (40:00): Let me add one more thing. We're going to give a lawyer to lawyer example, but I want to mention within law offices there's staff and the way staff communicates with each other often is modeled by the way the lawyers communicate. And so we have whole sections in the book for staff, lawyer and staff communication and staff to staff communication so everybody can really check themselves. Speaker 1 (40:27): Absolutely. So let's do another example between the lawyers. Speaker 2 (40:30): This is between Fred who is, it's a dispute between a wife and a husband, and it's the attorney for the wife and the attorney for the husband that are in communication with one another. So the attorney for the wife is sending an email to the attorney for the husband, and they're talking about an issue with phone service. The attorney for the husband is Pete. So sending an email to Pete, Hey Pete, do you know what your client did this weekend? He cut off my client's cell phone service on the weekend when the office was closed for reinstating service. It's outrageous that you cover up for him and defend him unless you do something about this right away. I'm going to court for an emergency order. You need to do something now, Fred. Speaker 3 (41:19): Okay, so here's the first draft response. Hi Fred. I checked with my client. He said he sent your client an email two weeks ago stating he was no longer paying for her cell phone service, affected the first of the month because he's begun paying her 3000 per month support according to the court order. I have attached a copy of his email. Please check things out before you hysterically jumped to conclusions that my client is always doing something wrong. This seems to happen every Monday morning in this case. Very truly yours, Pete. So let's run it through the Biff checker. And as Rihanna pointed out, really the very first question is a response necessary? Yes, of course. You should almost always respond to opposing counsel, especially when they're upset. Your non-response could hurt you in the eyes of others. Is it brief? Yes. It's just five sentences. Speaker 3 (42:19): Is it informative? Well, yeah, it addresses the issue, although it goes a little beyond that. Is it friendly? No, not friendly. It gives Pete an explanation, but then it undercuts it with a nasty comment firm. No, because Fred's likely to respond. It didn't end the hostile conversation. Does it give advice? No advice, admonishments. Absolutely. The paragraph about hysterical comments is a very insulting admonishment. Apologies. No, no apologies. But let's try. So that's not a Biff because it's not friendly, not firm, and it has admonishments. So let's try again. Hi Fred. I checked with my client about your concern. He said that he sent your email, your client, an email two weeks ago stating he's no longer paying for cell phone service, effective the first of the month because he begun paying her 3000 per month support according to the court order. I've attached a copy of his email, which should clear things up. Speaker 3 (43:26): Very truly yours, Pete. Well, let's do that response. Yeah, I have to respond. Yes. It's just one paragraph. It's brief, informative. Yes. This explains what happens and then ends the conversation. Friendly. Yeah, I checked with my client, this should clear things up. It's not super friendly, but it's sufficient. Said firm. Yeah, it ends the discussion of the issue. There's no hooks to get Fred to respond. Further advice. No admonishments, no apologies. No. Is it a Biff? Yes. So that's a good example between lawyers and frankly, that's the kind of way lawyers talk to each other, that 10 to 20% that do nasty emails. Speaker 1 (44:11): And here's the really beautiful thing. This costs you nothing. A Biff costs you nothing to write, right? Just takes a little tiny bit of discipline, a little bit of your time, and it just works. And when you use it and you get something back that's rational or you get nothing back at all, or even something that's just, oh, okay, thanks. You feel like a superpower? You have some magic wand. And I know there's not a magic wand for everything. High conflict. However, there are tools, as you were saying, Rihanna, there are tools that lawyers and others in the legal profession can use that will make it more civil and be so good for you. Okay, so let's move along to our last example. And this is about folks who work in our courts who have to handle a lot of tons of tons of communication. So Rihanna Speaker 2 (45:08): Or Bill, do you want to switch roles for the last one? Speaker 3 (45:11): Okay, this is court staff to the lawyer. Hello, Mr. Kumar. Your client's hearing is being rescheduled. Details to follow, Samantha. Speaker 2 (45:21): That's a very common response that court staff sends to attorneys and then of course attorneys get really, really frustrated. It's a difficult situation. This is now the first attempt at a response. So it is the attorney responding to the court staff after getting that. Hello, Ms. Dan. I just received a notification that my client's hearing date was changed. Again, I'm not sure what happened this time, but my client is extremely frustrated. I know that COVID-19 has clogged up the court system, but I don't know what to tell my client anymore. We've been preparing for this hearing for two years. This time notification did not even state a specific date for the hearing. The next hearing, how do I find out? What do I do in this situation? Sincerely, Rishi. So going through the Biff checker is a response necessary. This is, I think a great moment to pause because it actually might not be necessary if the court staff has sent details to follow. Speaker 2 (46:24): It might be a situation in which you wait. You might have to be patient, but it also could be a situation in which you respond, but you want to respond with a Biff response. So going through what was just sent, was it brief? Definitely not. It's very long-winded. Is it informative? No. It's a space where the attorney is venting their frustration and asking what to do, but not really providing any information kind of to the court staff. Is it friendly? No. The attorney does acknowledge that there is a reason for the delay, but they really spend the majority of the email focusing on how annoyed or frustrated they are. Is it firm? No. It's a lot of the attorney rambling on giving unnecessary information and really doesn't come to any sort of resolution. Is there advice? Luckily not in this case. There's no advice. But there are admonishments, the attorney directly or indirectly actually in this case, admonishes, the staff and the court system in general and understandably is frustrated, but is again, not the right context to explain that frustration. And there are no apologies, but overall this is not a Biff response. Speaker 1 (47:40): And what came to mind for me? Sorry to interrupt here, Rihanna, but it's probably I would imagine court staff have to sort of put up with some hostile emails sometimes from legal counsel. I think it's probably kind of easy to express frustration at the courts and the court staff probably feel some stings once in a while. Speaker 2 (48:02): And I would also argue that having a bad relationship with court staff is really detrimental. Speaker 1 (48:10): It's a bad idea. Speaker 2 (48:12): It's not a great idea. And having these good relationships, especially when you're going to court all the time, really is a game changer because you want to have people in your corner. You want to have people who are there helping you because dealing with the court system is extremely difficult at times. Speaker 3 (48:29): Let me add to that, as a family lawyer for 15 years, there's so many little details that have to go through the court staff in terms of scheduling and in terms of approving judgments and things like that. And it really made a difference. I've had court staff go out of their way to be helpful because I've been as helpful and friendly as I could be to them. And the things they have control over, they want to help you with if you're treating them with respect. And so it's such an important thing. We see Speaker 2 (49:03): You're all in it together. Speaker 3 (49:04): We're on the same team, everybody. That's the thing we got to realize. Speaker 2 (49:08): Exactly. So here's the second response. Dear Ms. Stan, thank you for your notification. That's that my client's hearing date has changed. This is a little frustrating since we have been waiting two years, but I know that the court system is clogged right now because of COVID-19. What do you recommend I do to receive a new court hearing date? Thank you again. What's the response necessary? Maybe, maybe not, but in this case, the attorney is earnestly asking what to do next. So I would argue that it is appropriate to send a response. And is it brief? Yes, it's a couple of sentences and it's straight to the point. Is it informative? Yes. It's asking for guidance on what to do next, which is appropriate for an attorney to ask for. In this case, is it friendly? Yes. Although the attorney does express frustration, their tone is friendly from start to finish and they use really kind of opening and closing words that make it seem friendly. Is it firm? Yes. The attorney asks a clear question at the end and does not give advice, does not admonish and does not apologize in this case. So this would be a Biff response and would also be a good way to help the attorney figure out what to do next. Speaker 1 (50:32): So there you have it, three solid examples that can be used in different areas of law. And the book is chockfull of different examples for many, many other areas. So I hope that's been really helpful to you. The listeners, bill or Rihanna, do you have any last words about this? Speaker 3 (50:50): Just that we have approximately 30 examples. And so for court staff, for lawyers with each other, with their clients, with experts, law staff with each other, and also teaching your staff and your clients the Biff method, because we really think this can spread and we really want to give people tools to have civil and productive conversations. Speaker 2 (51:18): And I will also add that most of these examples come from a real world experience, whether it's been from our own experience within our legal careers or especially I asked a lot of friends who are in different spaces in different legal spaces about their experiences. So this all comes from a real place and we're hoping that it can be helpful in all different contexts within the law office and potentially beyond. Speaker 1 (51:43): And what's come to mind for me is that this is a book that should be included in law school, right? So if you're at a law school, you might mention this to your teams. Speaker 1 (52:02): Thank you for listening everyone today. We hope this has been very helpful. We'll have a link to the new book in the show notes, so please have a look there. It's going to be, it's available on our website@highconflictinstitute.com or anywhere. Books are sold, Barnes and Noble, Amazon, and it's also available as an ebook. So that's it for Biff, for lawyers and law offices. Next week we're going to talk about being a target of blame specifically whether you as the target of blame, have influence over whether you remain one and the level of blame and level of target you become. How can you influence that, if at all? In the meantime, send your questions to podcast@highconflictinstitute.com or submit them to high conflict institute.com/podcast and we'd love it if you tell your friends about us and leave us a review wherever you listen to our podcast. Until next time, keep learning and practicing these skills. Be kind to yourself. Use fifth and we'll all try to be on that team together, finding the missing piece. Speaker 4 (53:17): It is All Your fault is a production of True Story FM Engineering by Andy Nelson. Music by Wolf Samuels, John Coggins, Ziv Moran. Find the show notes and transcripts at True story fm or high conflict institute.com/podcast. If your podcast app allows ratings and reviews, please consider doing that for our show.