Tit for Tat

Tit for Tat.

I had no idea that this phrase dates all the way back to 1556.  Uncle Wiki explains that it was originally “tip for tap,” meaning “blow for blow.” Retaliation in kind.  While an analysis of it is useful for things like game theory (or lawyering), at bottom it is a pithy phrase for a base human emotion and response.  And it’s kinda ugly.

Over the past few days I have thought a lot about this phrase.  How awful it is.  And, as we are now halfway through Lent (see last month’s entry), I have thought about how much a part of my life this little phrase has become, and that I have to purge the impulses it describes so well.

This bit of introspection followed a recent conversation I had.  It was likely the last conversation that I will ever have with that person.  It was suggested to me that I “always had an answer” for anything that was said.  Instead of accepting and internalizing a comment, I always had a comeback.  Always a response.  A debate.  As I look back on those interactions, it was probably true.  I am disappointed in myself about it.  And more than a little sad.

It’s all so easy.  Our culture (or at least the one that exists in social media) seems to exist to allow those little battles to take place.   Snarkiness is easy when it’s anonymous, or semi-anonymous.  I’ve done at least my share of it.  I don’t have any interest in talking about politics anymore, in person or on line, such that those base responses can hopefully disappear.

Tit for tat captivates my professional environment.  Our collective actions have gotten so bad that years ago the bar established specific rules on how attorneys should behave during depositions.  A few years ago the local bar association held an ethics seminar devoted to an analysis of “tit for tat” in our professional interactions.  The moderator presented some research that suggested “tit for tat” doesn’t work.  Instead, we will be more successful by responding in a more positive way.  Afterward some of us questioned the methodology of the study.  Maybe we should have spent a little more time getting past that to think about how we do business.

More recently the bar has introduced the notion of “collaborative law,” primarily in family law, as a way to get past the bickering and help people get what they really need.  Naturally, I’m skeptical.  I don’t do family law, so I haven’t had any direct connection to what they are trying to do.  I hope it works.  I DO know that divorce is the most stressful experience I have ever endured.  We need to find a way to help people through it emotionally, while taking care of their legal needs at the same time.  It isn’t easy.

I am certainly not immune from these tit for tat professional responses.  Just the other day a lawyer called with a request.  My immediate reaction was to ask what was in it for my client (and for me).  In response to something currently going on in my church board of elders, I actually remarked to a friend that I was going to “launch a counteroffensive.”  Obviously I have some work to do.  God help me.

It would be easy for me to blame my profession for how I interact with people.  That isn’t fair.  There are plenty of lawyers that act professionally in everything that they do.  We aren’t all the scumbag stereotypical jerk people joke or complain about, and certainly most of us are not that way all the time.  I think it is more likely that my personality fuels my occasionally snarky professional demeanor, not the other way around.

So, it’s time to work on myself.  To think before I react.  To take my own advice.  When I meet with a client before a deposition I always give them the basic guidelines all lawyers give: (1) always speak the truth: and (2) always pause for a moment, take a breath and make sure you understand the question before answering it, making sure the answer appropriately responds to the question.  I would also add a third: in personal interactions, always speak from the heart, not necessarily the head.  Life shouldn’t always be a debate.