Mʏᴇʀs & Cᴏᴍᴘᴀɴʏ
Reconciling what the Client Feels with the Law
We tell stories because we want connection and validation.
What we're really saying is:
"This is how I felt. Have you felt this way too?"
It brings to mind Peter Frampton.
Clients share their stories with us. They're not just conveying information. They're also looking for confirmation that their feelings are legitimate.
Even more important than validating client feelings is the process of aligning those feelings with what can be recovered under the law.
For instance, litigation stress is a big deal. But it's not compensable under Washington law. So that's not the story we want to tell.
We represented a client recently who, at age 60, purchased her first new car. It was not only her first new car, it was going to be her "forever" car. That was, until the wreck.
She was unable to get past the idea of that she lost the car that was going to last the rest of her life. It didn't matter to her that she had accepted the total loss payment.
The way she originally told the story didn't lineup with any viable damage theories. So we re-wrote the story. Rather than the loss being the new car, the loss became the ability to deal with what otherwise would've been temporary setbacks.
The insurance company found this compelling and paid a lot more money than we thought we were going be able to get at arbitration or trial.
Two claps for honoring feelings, but at the same time packaging them to maximize recovery.