English Grammar and Usage, Gender, In-House Counsel

The Road Not Taken: 'Just'ice Denied

All attorneys should proof their communications for language that undermines their credibility.

By  
on

Former Google executive Ellen Petry Leanse recently republished on LinkedIn an article that first appeared on “Women 2.0” called “‘Just’ Say No” about using the word “just” in business communications. To sum up her position on the matter: don’t use it. She described the word as a “permission” word and a “child” word when used to soften direct communications like, “I was just following up,” or “I just wanted to know if you have reviewed. . . “

I agree with Leanse’s premise that women use this type of language more than men and it undermines our credibility. I am a “just” addict and make a concerted effort to remove “just” from my emails when appropriate. Do you see that “when appropriate”? I think that for people in certain positions, particularly lawyers, softening language is necessary.

This “when necessary” is a touchy subject with many heads. First, there is the matter Leanse discussed of “just” being a “permission” word. Second, there is the risk of being penalized as a woman for being too much like men (e.g., too direct), third, there is the inherent grayness of legal absolutes, and fourth, there is the issue of having to communicate difficult information to other people, including non-lawyers and possibly superiors.

The last two points affect all of us. Lawyers deal in the smeary borders and gray areas of what others may see as firm boundaries. Absolutes are easy; most intelligent people can work within defined guardrails. The hard part is figuring out if those guardrails can bend and if so, how far. As lawyers, we are trained to not commit to absolutes.  We’ve learned to preface our conclusions with “Depending on the specific fact pattern,” and, “This analysis is based on the facts provided.” As part of our commitment-phobe communication style, the word “just” serves a useful purpose. In this context, “just” has value.  However, this is not the purpose Leanse intended in her piece. In the examples Leanse provides, “just” does not serve the communicator.

The last point: communicating difficult information, is where I depart from Leanse’s directive to eliminate “just” as a “permission” word. Lawyers, whether in-house or at a firm, are usually brought in because someone has done something to cause a problem or because someone is about to cause a problem. If a project is easy, straightforward, and everyone follows the rules, there is usually no need for legal support.

But when Legal is called in, whether before or after the problem, we have to find and define the issue. This means articulating that somebody made a bad decision. Usually, the communication comes in the form of a group email or a conference call where multiple people can learn of the various ways their colleagues failed to do their job well. In this context, you are going to bruise egos with your communication. Even worse, you will bruise an ego in front of an audience. When a lawyer works at a firm, his relationship with his clients is different than that of the in-house attorney. The in-house attorney is, ultimately, a co-worker to the people she is about to embarrass, in the name of doing her job. The likelihood of an in-house attorney seeing or working with her “victim” again, and on a daily basis, is much more likely than that of an attorney at a firm. Furthermore, outside counsel is a company’s hired consultant. For that reason, and because the company is paying extra for the expertise, people in-house are more likely to be respectful of the individuals the company retained specifically for the purpose of solving (or preventing) a problem.

In these circumstances, and in situations where a problem has not yet arisen and isn’t significant enough to require outside counsel, I use “permission” language. I use this tactic most frequently to indicate confusion on my part and to elicit an explanation from my colleague. Usually, in the act of explaining what he wants to the “clueless” lawyer, my colleague will see for himself the gaps in his judgment and resolve the potential problem himself. If he doesn’t solve the issue himself, I can walk him through my “confusion” without directly pointing out his mistakes. “Just” softens my communication, for example, “I need clarification” can be transformed into “I just need some clarification.”

Sponsored

Would it be faster for me to send a short email telling my colleague (who may well be an executive of the company) that he’s wrong and that he can’t do what he wants, so pound sand? Yes. Would it be smarter for me to do that? No. I have to work with these people and ultimately, I want them to succeed. Egos are a part of success and a publicly bruised ego carries with it years of baggage. “Permission” language is a tool I use to get what I need without destroying my relationship with my colleagues.

I don’t know if this technique is gender-specific; e.g., would it work if I were male? I look at it as a gentler version of the Socratic method. The only way I have figured out to make it “gentler” is by taking the subservient position and allowing my colleague to “explain” to avoid an unnecessary conflict, public humiliation, and potentially poisoning my relationships.

In general, I agree with Leanse and I strongly recommend that all attorneys proof their communications for language that undermines their credibility. I specifically recommend this for female attorneys who may not be aware of this proclivity. However, I also recommend thinking about when taking a subservient position may be worthwhile. You don’t always have to be right to win.

Celeste Harrison Forst has practiced in small and mid-sized firms and is now in-house at a large manufacturing and technology company where she receives daily hugs from her colleagues. You can reach Celeste directly at[email protected].

Sponsored

Topics

, , , , ,