Zealotry and Rain

When talking about lawyers you often hear about "zealous" advocacy. It's recently come up again in an email discussion I follow among Collaborative Law practitioners at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollabLaw/.

The phrase "zealous advocacy" has its roots -- if not its genesis -- in the ABA's Model Rules of Professional Conduct. In the "Preamble: A Lawyer's Responsibilities" we find the fuller context of legal zealotry:

[2] As a representative of clients, a lawyer performs various functions. As advisor, a lawyer provides a client with an informed understanding of the client's legal rights and obligations and explains their practical implications. As advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client's position under the rules of the adversary system.[emphasis added]

The State of Washington adopted those rules some time ago, with some few but significant revisions. Here's the Washingtonian take on legal advocacy:

[2] As a representative of clients, a lawyer performs various functions. As advisor, a lawyer provides a client with an informed understanding of the client's legal rights and obligations and explains their practical implications. As advocate, a lawyer conscientiously and ardently asserts the client's position under the rules of the adversary system.

So up here in the upper-left hand corner of the map, rather than being zealous we are called to be conscientious and ardent.

Maybe it's the grey skies and the drizzle that saps the zealotry out of us in a way our caffeine habits can't replenish.

Real People in Real Disagreements

Awhile back I asked people in a survey about how they describe what's happening when they're in real disagreements. For those of you reading this because you took it, thank you so much!

If you haven't taken it, I'll leave it up for awhile. Here's the link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=HWpdZ_2fdo_2fpeyVctrGSBE9A_3d_3d.

The results are below. But first, why a survey? Why ask people how they think about their disagreements?

Because lawyers talk funny. Everyone knows that. But lawyer-talk is part of the popular culture through TV and literature, so we sort of understand them.

Dispute resolution professionals talk even funnier. And the general public doesn't have much exposure to these people. They sound just plain weird. As Steve Martin once said about the French, "it's like they have a different word for everything!"

I did this survey to reground myself in the language of real people, as they really are, when they are in the middle of real disputes.

I really, really need to understand and to speak the language of real people in a way that is real to them when I'm marketing my services. I don’t have the ability to see how my words are working and how people react to them. I can't see it when they read my website and wince. I need the kind of information this survey provides to be able to describe what I do, how I do it, and when I might be able to help.

So – to the heart of it – what did we learn? Here’s an amalgam of your responses:

I asked you to think back on a serious event, which you would have called a Disagreement (50.0%), Conflict (48.2%), or Difference of Opinion (48.2%), Strained Relationship (41.1%), Confrontation (39.3%), Issue (37.5) or Dispute (33.9%). What was happening with you during that time is you felt Frustrated (80.7%), Annoyed (50.9%), Angry (42.1%), Unhappy (42.1%), Upset (40.4%), and Unfairly treated (38.6%).

What you wanted to have happen was A solution (54.4%), A resolution (49.1%), An agreement (47.4%), Resolution (47.40%), A sustainable solution (45.6%) and To be understood (45.6%). What you didn’t want is Money (3.5%), To cause the other grief (1.8%), A public statement (1.8%), Attorneys' fees (1.8%), Recompense (0.0%), To ignore it (0.0%), or To sue (0.0%).

What you wanted from an outside person were Suggestions (59.3%), Solutions (53.7%), Assistance (53.7%), Advice (51.9%), Support (51.9%), and Recommendations (51.9%). You didn’t want the outside person To sue the other person (1.9%), To avenge me (1.9%), To threaten the other person (0.0%), To cause the other person pain (0.0%), To cause the other person expense (0.0%).

Considering how you felt at those times, you felt better about these ideas: Being understood (4.34 out of 5), Resolution (4.31), Being heard (4.29), Results (4.24), Solution (4.24), Agreement (4.23), Being acknowledged (4.20), Thank you (4.18), Productive (4.11), Result (4.10), and Cooperation (4.08). You felt worse about these ideas: Adversarial (1.76 out of 5), Leave it (1.76), Drop it (1.68), Ultimatum (1.67), Patronize (1.46), Give up (1.45), and Lawsuit (1.38).

Facing that kind of situation now you’d be more likely to involve a Mediator (3.83 out of 5), Mentor (3.74), Conflict Resolution Specialist (3.72), Dispute Resolution Professional (3.58), or Facilitator (3.53). You’d be least inclined to involve an Attorney (2.56 out of 5), Therapist (2.47), Referee (2.41), Pacifier (2.36), Judge (2.35), or Umpire (2.05).

The contexts of the situations you were thinking about were Workplace/workgroup (61.2%), Family matters (34.7%), Professional Services (26.5%), Neighborhood/Community (22.4%), Real Estate/Property (22.4%).

Demographics. 78% of you were 40+ years of age, mostly female (52.1%). You often work with other people (77.1%), are homeowners (66.7%), are parents (54.2%), are employees (50%) or are employed by someone else (43.8%).

What do you think? Surprised? There were certainly parts that surprised me – so I’m really glad I had your help. Thanks again!