Write Like A Lawyer

I do not pretend that I have the same ability to write to the level of a lawyer, but that doesn’t stop me from trying, especially, when every single word I write will be scrutinized and potentially used against me. That’s when I put on my thinking cap and spend an excessive amount of time carefully crafting what I’m going to write. I have so many instances where I’ve had to be extremely cautious when writing an email or an occasional memo in the hopes of avoiding certain criticism. The critiques aren’t limited to your customers. Sometimes my boss has had to set me straight. Occasionally, I get a correction from someone on my team. It can be exhausting trying to avert criticism, and all I’m trying to do is log off for the day and do anything but think about this email that must be sent.

Below is a story of me (trying) to use critical thinking and soft skills to dispute a stakeholder’s argument. This post could help you in a similar situation.

This project was a joint venture (JV), and the deliverable was the development of a design-build request for proposal (D-B RFP) that would eventually be awarded to a design-build contractor. The project was fast-paced because the front bookend was a late award, and the back bookend was dealing with funding expirations. We had a successful charrette but, for different reasons out of our control, we were unable to create a 35% conceptual floor plan to the extent we had hoped for during that week of face-to-face meetings with the customer. Post-charrette with the project underway, we had weekly coordination meetings both internal and external. Most of my projects operate on a biweekly basis but given the nature of this project with respect to our period of performance, we held weekly meetings. During these internal JV coordination meetings, it became clear that we needed to have the customer review conceptual floorplan drawings because their feedback was vital for developing the D-B RFP.

Their feedback and approval influenced the sizing of the mechanical equipment, which had a ripple effect on structural and architectural design. The problem though was with my JV counterpart who was the managing partner of the project. My counterpart didn’t want to introduce a review even if it was informal or really anything that could potentially disrupt the design schedule. My counterpart’s view was that schedule trumped quality or budget. I understand this perspective, and there was logic behind it. Right or wrong, I had to upward report the situation to my program manager and boss.

I knew that the email I would write needed to be defensible and objective because once you send an email of this consequence, it will likely make its way around to others, including your JV partners. I wrote the email but made a few important corrections before sending it. I didn’t say the project “is” going to suffer, even though I originally had used that word. I revised the email to state that the budget and the quality will “likely” suffer given its current trajectory in the event of forgoing a floorplan review. I backed my argument up with reasoning because of the re-work that would likely be required. In that same email thread, I provided factual dates of what topics were discussed in meetings and who was in attendance to give more context. I had a phone conversation with a lawyer once who offered feedback on a report I was writing. He said, “Don’t tell the reader what happened if you can’t prove it but rather guide the reader to reach your conclusions.” That really stuck with me.

I don’t think I would have changed much in that email to my program manager, except for one thing. I wish I had added an explanation of why my counterpart was forgoing a review to explain the opposing view. Nonetheless, we ended up submitting the floorplan for an additional but unofficial review, I’m glad we did because it benefited the outcome of the project.