Managing those who control your life

What does that mean and what are all the implications of that simple statement? Can someone truly control your life? I continue to receive advice on these topics and it is somewhat interesting.

In the case of law enforcement and the court system (judicial branch), ultimately they can incarcerate you, fine you, and compel you to do things under the threat of the aforementioned. One could take a risk, as I have done many times, and say I do have a choice, despite being ordered to do something. I may have consequences to that choice, anxiety over the punishment or the actual punishment. But then ignoring the choice may leave me with a larger problem, as in my case, three attempts to foreclose on my home with over 50% equity.

In a practical sense, lawyers are your interface to the judicial branch, and by extension during times when you are under control of the judiciary you are under control of your lawyer and opposition counsel or the prosecutor. You may think control is too strong a word given they are just under your employ, but then you would be mistakenly underestimating the power of the judiciary.

So how do you relate to these people who are under your employ that would control your life? Well in general, you should manage employees to measurable goals, monitor that these results are achieved and direct the employees to carry out your desired priorities. In practice, lawyers make this very difficult, they do not appreciate an informed, demanding client. As a professional they feel they are entitled to a wide range of trust and and limitations on that trust are viewed as insulting to their profession. They are good at playing this victim role while they are in fact victimizing you.

It is you that have to live with the consequences of their decisions. How can they possibly have the arrogance and audacity to think you should have complete and blind trust in a stranger who has "no skin in the game"? The short answer is they do in fact have the arrogance and audacity and when you attempt to manage them in the slightest way it will rear its ugly head.

So what level of management is correct, what level of monitoring for this "professional" with nothing at risk in the outcome of the case? Well wide latitude would be appropriate if we were talking about business results and this employee was a stakeholder in the business and would suffer risk dependent on the outcome (not get paid, loose their job). But with lawyers they suffer no such risk, so a closer, typically non-professional supervision is called for. Is there something else to consider? How about conflict of interest, built into the judiciary where all the lawyers and judges are beholden to the State Bar? How about the potential to run out of funds because of their steep fees? Well any auditor or risk manager would be waving red flags high in the air at this point. Implement strict controls, checks and balances, close supervision and pre-authorization is an absolute prerequisite, would be their strong recommendation.

Too strong you may think? Well what are we talking about, your life, your child's access to you for over a decade. And how is the risk proportioned - 100% on you. Wow! Still think its over bearing. Well I say the MM word now. Yep, you will be accused of micromanaging them. Uhhh, that's bad. Is it? Well you don't (hopefully) micromanage your own life, so isn't this the same thing? If you said yes go back and re-read, unlike you, they don't live with the consequences of their foul ups, they are encumbered by conflicts.

So the professional advice I received from someone who has many qualifications to offer such advice is, yes there is an exception to micromanaging. You need to micromanage those who would control your life, or suffer the consequences.

Status: First Draft