0:00 Who [music] are you? And where are you going?
0:07 >> [music]
0:07 >> What do you want? Hello and welcome to Trust and Estates weekly. I'm your host Kevin Bemel and I'm here every Monday at 10:00 a.m. Pacific time to talk about estate planning and trust and probate administration from the standpoint of professionals like myself and and my guest Raphael who I will introduce in a in a minute. But also for lay people, you know, individuals who
0:43 find that they've been made the executor of an estate. But this is not what they do for a living and they can I you know, undoubtedly find it perplexing, difficult, aggravating. So, you know, get some information here that hopefully will help you handle your responsibilities better. So, today I am so pleased to welcome back to the to the Way to Wow shows in general for his third appearance giving him the award for most appearances on the show. My very good friend Raphael Lapin.
1:19 Raphael is the owner of Lapin Negotiation Services which you see right there. And you know, we we talk on a pretty regular basis and while Raphael's service is not limited to just dealing in in the probate and trust administration realm, he's had a number of situations where he did deal in that and so I wanted to well, you know, have him come back on to talk about these issues since unfortunately disputes often become a
1:56 big part of administration. So So Raphael, first of all, thanks Thanks for coming on again, third time. Thank you, Kevin. Thank you so much for having me. I'm I'm beginning to feel quite at home with you here.
2:07 >> [laughter]
2:12 >> So um if you have if you have not seen the previous episodes with uh Raphael, I I I'll again tell you I'll again tell you is check them out. Uh he is quite the raconteur as the uh as the French say. But So Raphael, for for those who have who who don't know you Yes. Let's Let's just start I want to start a little bit so people can understand you.
2:33 >> Are there actually people who don't know me yet? I mean, that's that has to be corrected immediately. Oh, okay.
2:38 >> [laughter]
2:39 >> Don't know you yet. Yes, exactly. He's getting me back now because before we started the show, I told him a lawyer joke and it took a beat for him to get it cuz he didn't realize I was telling a joke, right? So here Here we go, folks.
2:54 >> [laughter]
2:55 >> This is going to be good. All right. So So start out by you know, telling us you know, what is the background that you developed in order to be an effective mediator in in order to you know, help people with negotiating the various situations in which they find themselves? Well you know, um Kevin, it probably all started when I was a little boy and the youngest of four siblings or four children. Uh-huh.
3:26 >> Um and uh I had to learn how to hold my own quite quickly and quite early on. So negotiating came a survival tool for me um as far as surviving my sister and my two older brothers. Um but uh I really took an interest in it back in the early '90s. Uh mediation was beginning to come into its own. Mhm. Uh in those days, it was predominately used for divorce and family issues. And negotiation was becoming uh
4:01 its own well-defined and well-structured and well-disciplined uh course of study. Um the the the very first, I think, um or the forerunner of negotiation, mediation, dispute resolution really becoming a a recognized discipline was the Harvard Law School. And Harvard Law School started as part of the Harvard Law School, what was then called the Harvard Negotiation Project. Um Roger Fisher wrote the book Getting to Yes, which I'm sure many people, many of your listeners have heard have heard of. Um
4:36 he wrote that book, and that was based on the early um uh development of mediation, of dispute resolution, of negotiation. And I actually studied under him. Uh back in the early '90s, and that's where I got my early training as part of the Harvard Law School in negotiation, in mediation, in dispute resolution. Um what's interesting is that as I said, early in those days, in the early '90s, it was predominately used for um for family law. And in fact, the first 2 years of my practice um was entirely family law. Um which was
5:11 actually very good for me because if you can handle that degree of animosity and tension and stress in a between warring spouses, um then the boardroom becomes almost easy to manage. Um even though there is also tension and stress, but very, very different to a family issue. Um so so that's where I really started, and it was very good. And then it parlayed into the corporate world. Um in fact, one of my very first clients, sort of beginner's luck almost, was British Telecom out of England. Oh, wow. Um and
5:48 um we did quite a lot of work with them back in the early '90s. Uh-huh. And [clears throat] did a lot of other other corporate work. Turner Construction worked for many years serving as a consultant to them and helping them resolving their construction disputes. Um, and at that point my practice was kind of evenly split between a practitioner actually doing uh, involved in practicing dispute resolution and doing corporate training. Hm. Um,
6:17 >> [clears throat]
6:17 >> and then 2008 hit and the big recession hit. And of course in corporate budgets the very first thing that usually goes is training and development and learning. And at that point I made a decision really to pivot predominantly um, to to the practitioner side of dispute resolution, mediation, and negotiation. Um, and that's where my practice really is now. So, we do quite a bit of mediation between parties where I'm working on behalf of both parties. Um, and we also do uh, conflicts coaching. Uh-huh. People need help in in managing conflict or organizations need help in managing
6:53 conflict. Um, and then we also represent parties in negotiation. Um, so a person or a company who's involved in a difficult negotiation uh, well then I retain uh, our company either to represent them at the table or to be behind the scenes support, negotiation support for them. And we provide both those services. So, I've seen quite a range um, of of issues, um, anything from you know, as I mentioned a lot of construction stuff, estates, wills and and estates and trusts. Um, uh, still quite a lot of family law, a lot of real
7:28 estate disputes, um, a lot of corporate LLC issues and disputes. So, I've seen quite a range of things. Um, but you know, here we're discussing trusts and and and wills and and estates and that sort of thing. And I must tell you that I probably get one call a week at least uh on average um with a a disputes around an estate or a trust. Right. Right.
7:54 >> Um so so that's my basic background I think to answer your Yeah. So it's it's it's interesting because I I I did read Getting to Yes. Um I think shortly after it was published. And around that same time there was a guy by the name of Roger Dawson who was also putatively anyway teaching negotiations. His was really more sort of um tactics um that were I think were really meant for people who were in sales to sort of negotiate but close the sale. And it was it was
8:30 very different from the kind of principled uh basis that uh you know that I read about in in Getting to Yes. You you raise a really important point um because there are a lot of different processes. And first of all, talking about sales, every sales is a negotiation. Not every negotiation is a sales. Right.
8:54 >> Um necessarily. But there are also different processes. So yes, there is there are processes that are tactic based. Um and tactics there's a danger because if they are seen to be transparent uh you will lose. You'll lose in trust. You'll lose in relationship. If it's a ongoing relationship, um those tactics can be really dangerous uh if they're perceived as such. The tactics are not usually designed to help to build trust, rapport, and the relationship, and credibility. Mhm. Uh it's it's they're designed to get this deal done uh and be very short-sighted about any
9:31 deals beyond that. Um so what you what you called correctly so principled negotiation, uh which is the getting to yes model. Uh It's based much more on an authentic uh process of negotiation uh where it's built on building trust, on building credibility, on understanding that unless the other parties interests are not met at least acceptably, yours aren't going to be met at all. Right. Um so part of it is really spending time understanding the other side and trying to work out solutions that not only meet your
10:06 interests, but meet the other sides at least acceptably, otherwise they will not accept. Um so it's a much more authentic process. And then of course you've got a different process which many people confuse with negotiation, and that's haggling. And haggling's haggling's a different process. And it's not it's not an illegitimate process. It just just depends on the circumstances you're using it. If if I'm on the key side bargaining with a fisherman, Mhm. um for a to get us nice king salmon at a good price, um I'm not going to get involved in any complex negotiation with him. Uh you know, once he's given me the fish and
10:42 I've given him the money, the deal's done and the relationship's over. Exactly. Uh so all I'm interested in is getting the best deal, so I may use haggling there. Right. Um but in resolving disputes with people that I have to continue working with or or um uh keeping matters out of court, uh there we get we going to use a very very different approach. We going to use an authentic approach and a collaborative approach Mhm. um to to to resolve those issues. Well, and and I and I you know, because we're talking about uh negotiations and mediation in the context of trust and and probate administration, I think this
11:18 is really the key point. Because what I've seen is when a loved one, and I I'll use that term somewhat advisedly, dies, right? Leaves behind whatever they leave behind monetarily. So, first of all, that person is no longer there to sort of um require
11:40 >> [laughter]
11:40 >> his beneficiaries to behave themselves. Number one. Number two, setting that issue aside, whatever slights or offenses that were committed between the heirs, it seems like they're now going to be worked out through the probate. And yet, when all is said and done, many and the vast majority of the times these people are family members and presumably have relationships uh to, you know, that are of value, that that are going to endure hopefully
12:15 beyond, you know, the administration and closing of the probate. So, uh you know, address, if you would, you know, kind of that aspect of, you know, based on your experience of of dealing with beneficiaries, heirs, trustees, that sort of thing. Yes, certainly. Um so, a few things. First of all, um one thing I would recommend, and this this kind of gets to your area. I don't by any means want to step on your area, so maybe rather than recommend, I would
12:50 say uh offer as a suggestion. I'd be interested to hear your view on it. Um I would refrain from encouraging a grantor to um appoint a family member, particularly a beneficiary, as a trustee. You know, commonly it's done one of the children, often times the oldest child will be the trustee, or the most favored child will be the trustee, whatever it happens to be. Um I would far more recommend a trusted family confidant. Mhm. Uh in the old days, when I I little
13:25 boy, that was often times the family doctor. Uh you know, that was that was before that was before medicine became a a a business, a profit center. Mhm. Um where the doctor used to do the house calls and often times he was the family confidant. Um but but now there's some somebody who's uh a trusted um uh associate of the of the family, but not one of the beneficiaries or one of the children. Mhm.
13:53 >> Um that's one thing that I would in general recommend. Now, when when it comes to um uh to settle these disputes around trusts, uh you know, sometimes it can be over they feel that the trustee has abused funds, has misused funds, has embezzled funds. Um uh you know, that's one of the things. Other times if they just feel that he's not administering the fund the the the um the trust appropriately. And and many times, believe it or not, in in in disputes that we've mediated between family members over trusts, um you go
14:30 back in the history of those siblings and you see there was background where sometimes siblings that are bringing this case against the trust uh felt very very disenfranchised growing up Mhm. in terms of how how some how they perceive some of their siblings to have been treated with vis-a-vis them. And they feel they were always unfairly treated. Right.
14:56 >> So this is sometimes carrying baggage actually from childhood Mhm. that is sometimes driving this this dispute. And one of the things we pride ourselves in is uh you know, many lawyer mediators settle disputes. And what I always like to say is we don't just settle disputes, we resolve conflict. Mhm. [clears throat] And there's a difference. A court will settle a dispute, but the conflict continues. Uh and that's why they'll con- continue to appeal. Right.
15:22 >> Um and and if if if if uh mediator and attorney mediator settles the dispute by trying to leverage and apply the law there may be agreement at the end but the dispute is still there. Right. And sometimes we've got to work to try to resolve that dispute particularly where we can when it comes to trusts where we're talking about families. And Kevin I have seen families destroyed literally destroyed through trust disputes. So that's that's the first thing I would
15:58 I would certainly offer that people should consider not having a family member as a trustee. Mhm. But a confident or trusted family friend or associate. And at the other thing that that you mentioned is that the heir is no longer I'm sorry the grantor is no longer there to say behave yourself. That is very true. But there are instruments you can build into the trust Mhm. [clears throat] of how disputes should be handled and dealt with. I'm sure you've seen many of those cases. And I think that's also something to
16:33 consider because one of the focuses of the grantor should be to make sure that the trust doesn't tear the family apart. Right. And So so oh and so go ahead go ahead.
16:43 >> No no no no please please go ahead. Yeah so I I was going to say you know it's it's it's interesting because I've got a one particular you know situation where you know there's a father he's I I want to guess he's probably in his 80s now and there's a daughter and two brothers and they have built their situation I would say if there's a least optimal way that's what they've done. It's clear the daughter is the father's favorite and so he's given her all of the authority, but at the same time, the two brothers have
17:20 taken over operating the family business. And that
17:24 >> that's that in itself is already made up to be a huge flash point. And then to add insult to injury, the business is located in a property owned by the family. Right? So, you have all of these potential um flash points, right? Um and and I deal with the daughter because, you know, she's the one that
17:49 >> [snorts]
17:49 >> it it is ultimately in charge of the of the things that I that, you know, I get involved with which I get involved. Um but about every 3 years, the situation explodes. And then there's got to be a big negotiation, a big this. And and what you said, I think, is is so true. The disputes get settled, but the conflict lingers on. The conflict has never been And and the way it's set up, I I, you know, it would be extremely difficult for the conflict to be resolved. What needs to happen is there needs to be a whole reworking of how how
18:26 all of this is happening.
18:27 >> Correct. Correct. Yeah.
18:28 >> Um so so I don't think I don't think people put enough effort into designing the trusts. Um you know, they look at it purely from the legal points of view. The people that are typically involved are the trust attorneys. Um and attorneys generally, as as good as they are at what they do, and they are, but they are often times are very focused on the legal dimension. Does this work? Does this hold up? Um but they neglect the human dimension, which is so important when it comes to trusts. Absolutely. And and and in truth, a lot
19:05 of times when the when the estate planning is going on and and I don't really have an official role in that as as someone who serves as a independent trustee or you know, probate administrator. But what I'm when I am involved in that process, that's what I'm looking at because if I'm am going to be the one who's going to be the trustee, I'm looking for okay, where is this going to blow up? You know, where am I going to
19:34 >> ifs, the what ifs. Yeah, all the right. Where am I going to end up in court or something like that when I shouldn't be, right? What are the what are the interpersonal dynamics of this? Uh you know, that's being built into it. So. Well, we'll take a quick I'm just going to take a quick break and then I want to get you back. Yeah. Go right ahead. When life brings unexpected changes, managing inherited property shouldn't add to your stress. Magnum Properties specializes in probate and trust real estate management. We handle the complexities while you focus
20:11 on what matters most. From property maintenance to tenant relations, from legal compliance to maximizing value, we're your trusted partner through every step. Magnum Properties Inc., turning property challenges into peace of mind. Call us today at 213-264-4396 or visit magnumprops.com. Yeah, so um so uh Raphael, why don't you go ahead and and and I I interrupted you with the
20:46 with the break, but
20:47 >> Yeah, yeah, but what I'm saying is interestingly enough um as of today, I've never had a case come to me where somebody's called me up and said, you know, we are in the process of creating a trust. Uh we have our lawyers, you know, working on the legal side of things. We would like to sit down and speak about negotiating aspects of the trust to avoid problems later on. Mhm. Um and I think that would be quite uh um a good thing to consider. Mhm.
21:17 >> Um when a grantor is putting putting together trust, but particularly these high value trusts. Mhm.
21:23 >> Um [clears throat] where and the family members involved like the case you mentioned. Uh where where there's so many uh points Mhm. within that trust that could blow up and probably will blow up eventually. Mhm. Um that that this is the time uh to sit down and say, "Okay, look, we've got these issues. Um how are we going to deal with them?" Right. Right. Right. So, let's get maybe a little bit more down into the nuts and bolts. So, uh you know, you you you you a situation arises where let let let this is a pretty
21:58 typical situation. Uh there you know, the um the beneficiaries of a trust are upset at how the trustee is handling things. Um the trust doesn't have a trust protector, so there's no one there who uh you know, can uh remove the trustee and appoint somebody else, at least not without going to court. So, you know, now you've got a situation that's pretty ripe for dispute. And at least in my experience, a lot of times these these things end up in court and now you're paying, you know, both sides are paying lawyers and and it you know, it starts
22:35 to spin out of control. And of course, here in California, if that if this is where it's being handled, you know, once you get in court, you you could easily be two, three, four years in court, you know, getting just working through the the first phase of the legal process.
22:49 >> And and not to mention the cost. Exactly.
22:52 >> Um and and the emotional cost and and the stress Mhm.
22:55 >> depositions. Right. Um and and all those sort of things. Yeah.
23:00 >> Um So So talk to us how, you know, how do you approach a situation like that to maybe bring some, um, you know, sense out of the chaos? Yeah, so so in those kind of situations, as I mentioned early earlier, being a family, uh, uh conflict, as it were, they usually are far more intense. Mhm. Uh, when a family member feels wrongly done by another family member, uh, it's it's a lot more intense and it runs a lot deeper, uh, those emotions,
23:36 uh, than with non-family people where it's purely business. Mhm. Um, so so one of the one of the first things you want to do is, you know, there's a lot of accusations going backwards and forwards when it comes to me, um, I've I've got to be careful to listen to what's being said, but not necessarily be completely committed to what's being said. Um, and I can't tell you how many times I've had a case where I've heard the story from one person, uh, for one of the parties of the conflicting parties, for example, um, and it just sounds like such a straightforward case.
24:12 Um, I mean, this is a summary judgment case. This isn't even, uh, a litigated case. Right.
24:19 >> Um, and then you hear from the other side. Mhm. And then suddenly you see this is a lot more complicated than it appears to be. Mhm. Uh, you know, so one of the the beneficiaries may have a claim against the trustee uh, of either misusing funds or or or not allocating correctly and so on and so forth. Um, and and you listen to that and you know, this this trustee is a villain. Mhm. Mhm. Um, and and then you speak to the trustee, um, and you get a very very different picture. Uh, so one of the things one of the tools that we use, and we use them sort of early on in the process, is
24:55 facilitating understanding. Uh, that the parties can at least understand each other's perceptions and perspectives. Okay.
25:04 >> Without necessarily agree. Mhm.
25:07 >> people are very, very afraid of investing in understanding somebody. Um and certainly not demonstrating that they've understood somebody because they confuse that and misconstrue that with if I I demonstrate understanding, that must mean I agree. Right.
25:23 >> and those are two two very different things. There's there's the understanding and and I can understand you perfectly. Mhm. Um but that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with you. Mhm.
25:33 >> Um so there is a lot of the facilitating of the understanding and a lot happens in that part of the process. Um because if a if the mediator is effective in facilitating that understanding and being able to keep judgment out of the room and being able to keep agreement out of the room, that of oftentimes shifts and just loosens the rigid earth around that initial Mhm. perceptions and positions. Mhm. Um so so that that's one of the tools that we use. The other tools another tool that we use is um when you
26:08 go to probate court or any adjudicator process, for example, like arbitration, Mhm. [clears throat] it's the decision is made purely on the basis of how the arbitrator or the judge applies the law. Mhm.
26:22 >> sees the law, how he interprets that law, and he up to how he applies that law. That may be different between two different judges or arbitrators because they may interpret the law very differently. So it won't necessarily be the same outcome. But that's the extent to which the process um uh lends itself as far as resolving this dispute. Mhm. Uh and that's why the dispute is not resolved, it's settled, not resolved. Uh and it's only settled by virtue of the fact that they have to accept the court's uh ruling and order. Um when it comes to mediation, mediation
26:57 is a negotiated process. And when we talking about negotiation, Kevin, uh we're not necessarily talking about one answer. This is the only way. This is the law. We're looking for solutions and creative solutions that are based on the parties' needs, looking into the future. Mhm. And also on the on what the parties don't want to happen. Right. And what that might look like Mhm. if they allowed the situation to continue. So so sometimes an interest of a party is avoiding a situation, for example,
27:34 avoiding a long protracted two or three-year court case. And the question is, "Okay, well, what is that worth to me?" Right. And we look for creative ways of dealing with this. So we're not so much focused on who did what yesterday as a as opposed to who's going to do what tomorrow. Uh Mhm.
27:55 >> forward in into this thing. Now, I mentioned earlier that sometimes party sometimes this goes back to childhood in terms of how they felt they were treated. So sometimes in the listening stage, that first stage that I mentioned to you where we're facilitating understanding, sometimes that will take us back. And not in a therapeutic sense, but just in a sense to be able to facilitate where my perceptions are coming from. Mhm. And we've had situations where the other party said, "You know, I never realized you felt like that as a child."
28:30 And that in itself is a point of breakthrough. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. sure. So so in in the facilitating of the understanding phase, we'll spend some time, if necessary, delving a little bit into some of, you know, what happened in this household Mhm. as they were growing up, the relationship between each other, the relationship between them and their parents, and so on and so forth. But when we're in the negotiating phase of trying to find a resolution here, we'll be focused on okay, let's talk about what would be the best thing for you to happen tomorrow. Right. Right. What would allow you to go back tonight having reached a settlement
29:06 being able to sleep. Yeah. So, I I'm I'm curious to know um how often when you're doing that kind of mediation are the parties uh represented by counsel? And what impact does having lawyers, you know, representing the parties have on the process? Because And and you know, pe- people who watch this show regularly, they know. I I I am not one to knock lawyers. Uh it it's it's a
29:42 tough job. And and in some ways it's a it's a thankless job. Um having said that, there are lawyers out there who you know, they they know that conflict means a bigger, you know, a bigger payday, right? And so I could imagine a situation where in essence for all of your good work, the lawyers are behind the scenes or one of the lawyers is behind the scenes, you know, basically undermining
30:08 >> [clears throat]
30:08 >> your attempt to make progress on a principal basis. So, talk if you would about that dynamic. Again, how often, you know, lawyers are even involved and then, you know, how how that changes, supports, degrades the, you know, the the the process. Yeah, that that's also a a really good a good question and a question worth spending a little bit of time on. Um so so typically the the only cases which are consistently without lawyers, usually uh nine times out of 10 are family law cases, of
30:43 Uh so typically I'm sorry, they're without lawyers?
30:45 >> Without typically divorces when we meet him with a mediator are typically without without lawyers.
30:49 >> Oh, interesting. Okay. Now now we we always encourage uh once we've got the memorandum of understanding at least Mhm. sort of put out in in in points of of agreement uh we always encourage them to make sure to speak to the attorneys and have them review it. Now you do have mediation friendly attorneys and you have mediation attorneys that are the kinds that you have which will want to pull them back into battle. Right. Um now now one of the the um uh tips or techniques that I give people is never use the same attorney for litigation as for as reviewing counsel.
31:26 So if you're going to have them review the document, make it clear to them that if this does go to litigation, they will not be handling the case. Mhm. So you're removing their incentive Mhm. um to try to take this to litigation. Interesting. Uh-huh. So that's [clears throat] one way of to deal with it. Now in in trusts and estates we typically always do have attorneys. Mhm. And most other cases most other cases that we handle uh whether it's real estate, whether it's construction, whether it's um uh business, they are there are usually attorneys involved. Mhm. Um and and part
32:01 of my um uh job as a mediator is to bring the attorneys on board into the process. Because the attorneys can be incredibly helpful in the process. Or they can be destructive in the process. My experience has been that usually they're helpful. Mhm.
32:20 >> So I will set up a conference call with both attorneys before the mediation or with all attorneys depending on how many parties there are um and and speak to all the attorneys beforehand, explain to them what I'm doing in this process, and bring them into the into the process. Now, during the mediation if I see something's not going as it should be going from the attorney point of view, I will caucus with that attorney. Mhm. And negotiate with him. Interesting.
32:50 >> So, the negotiation sometimes shifts around Mhm. [clears throat] as to who's negotiating and and with whom Mhm.
32:57 >> are we negotiating. Um but I've got to tell you most times, you know, and also bear in mind usually it's the lawyers that bring it to mediation most of the times. Um and and by the time they bring you to mediation, they bring it usually for a reason unless a contract calls for it. Uh in which case it could be a pro forma, you don't know. Um but when attorneys do bring it to mediation, usually they're at the point where they also want to resolve it. Um so, I I've I've got to say my experience with attorneys in mediation has generally been positive. And and and you know, to to to be just,
33:32 I would say, you know, 90 plus percent of the the attorneys with whom I deal, I think are also very interested in serving their clients well, not pouring gasoline on the fire, you know, that that kind that that that kind of thing. And once in a while, you get someone either through I think ignorance, frankly, or self-interest
33:58 >> Well, sometimes even arro- sometimes arrogance even. Yes, absolutely. They want to fan the flames. Um but I I think most attorneys, because all they do is deal with pain and suffering all day long basically, right? They want to minimize the pain and suffering wherever they can. So, um but but I think a lot of the people listening to this, watching this, you know, in the question I asked is in the back of their minds, right? Uh because that is the perception of of lawyer lawyers that's generally out there. For you know, for good or for bad, right? So. Yeah, and sometimes I've
34:34 got to also, as I mentioned earlier, sometimes we represent clients as a negotiator. Um, and then we've got to deal with the lawyer on the other side. Um, and and you know, again, you know, as long as they feel that we are coming over authentically and collaboratively, uh, they usually engage well. Uh, usually we've had we've had occasions where they've uh um have have not. Um, but that's the exception rather than the rule. Yeah. And you know, the the interesting thing is and I've had um a couple of cases in the last, I want to say year 18
35:11 months, where the the attorney involved was actually one of the associates for the firm. And how that attorney was handling things was way out of line. Ev- even, you know, breaching uh attorney ethics. Um, and you know, in cases like that, I've asked my attorney to get in touch with one of the partners and say, "Hey, I you know, I'm not sure if you're aware of what's going on here, but at least this is how my client is perceiving it and we're trying to get this settled and we feel that, you know, your associate is not
35:46 getting there." Um, and in interestingly enough, in both cases, uh the partner heard it and said, "You know what? Let me let me get someone else on this." Well, one case, the partner himself said, "You know, I I I I'll I'll I'll I'll I'm going to get involved with this directly and and we're we're going to get this settled." So, I think too that um you know, outside of a sole practitioner, of course, where you don't have that dynamic, where you've got multiple lawyers in a firm, uh look, people get people things happen. Who knows why people do the things they do. It could have nothing to do with me, the
36:21 case, anything. Could could have an upsetting, you know, personal situation that's kind of seeping through to work, right? And I have sympathy for that. On the other hand, I have my client's interests that that need to be, you know, adhered to. So, I think to me that's, you know, that's the a dynamic that goes um unappreciated perhaps, right? It when when when in those rare cases where a lawyer appears to be, you know, a barrier to progress.
36:52 >> Yes. Yeah. So, So, Raphael, um you know, when you get into these situations where the sort of, you know, for want of a better way of describing them, childhood traumas are uh you know, being worked out or being acted out, I think is probably a better word, in the context of some kind of business matter. Um I'm curious to know, you know, what what you do, the the the
37:30 the process or the steps that you take to deal with that. I'm looking at the timer here. I'm going to let you think about that while we do another break and then we'll come back and get your answer.
37:38 >> Sure. Probate and Trust TV, your curated source for the most useful and insightful content on estate planning and trust and probate administration, featuring standout professionals like Bill Gross, Paul Rabalais, James Cunningham, and yours truly. Whether you're a lawyer, accountant, real estate professional, or working on your own succession plan, this channel helps you quickly find the clearest, most practical content YouTube has to offer.
38:13 Subscribe now to Probate and Trust TV. Spend more time learning, less time searching. Yeah, so um just um to to refresh is how do you how do you deal with those, you know, the eruption of the, you know, childhood traumas and such, which in many ways have nothing to do with the substance of of the matter, presumably?
38:37 >> Other other other than obstructing forward [clears throat] movement. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. [snorts] Um so typically in those situations, um uh Kevin, when you're dealing with human beings, uh there is a human need. If somebody feels unfairly treated, if somebody feels upset, emotional about something, um there's a human need to be feel heard, understood, and validated. Okay. And that means being able to listen to them, have the other parties facilitate good listening, deep
39:12 listening Mhm. by [clears throat] the other parties. And again, uh distinguishing between listening and and and agreeing. Um but they're being heard, they're being understood. Often times, this is the very first time that there's been this opportunity to actually feel heard, to feel understood, to feel validated. And validation isn't, "Yes, you're right. You were wrongly treated." But validation is, you know, as you're explaining this, I can understand why you would feel that way. Mhm. And I can understand how that builds up
39:47 over years without it ever being addressed. Mhm. [clears throat] Um and often times, once they are allowed to let off some steam about it, as it were, Mhm. um
39:57 >> [clears throat]
39:58 >> and with them being heard, them being validated, uh I'm using active listening while that's going on. Uh I'm encouraging the other party to do active listening while that's going on. And again, the at at that point, I make sure that the discussion doesn't devolve into who's right and who's wrong, and who's to blame and who's not to blame, but rather just a relay relating of a narrative of how they experienced particular events in their life growing up. Mhm. Um and
40:33 often times once we've done that, they're ready to move forward. Mhm.
40:38 >> [clears throat]
40:39 >> Uh so so you so we constantly in these family issues Mhm. [clears throat] we are constantly oscillating uh between removing the obstruction that emotional obstruction that has been there sometimes for years Mhm. and moving forward in terms of resolution. Yeah. And sometimes you involved in a stage of resolution and you see something's not working, you got to go back to that again. So you're oscillating between the two. Mhm. I you know, it strikes me that so much of what you do is, you know, for want of
41:16 a better term, almost, you know, relationship coaching. Um because so much of of what you've you've talked about so far has really been It's it No, I would take not so much. I think all that you've talked about so far is really human dynamics. Well, yes, and and let's break that down for a moment. Um if you trust me and I trust you and we've got a good relationship Mhm. we're much more likely to do business um and and rely on one another compared to if we didn't have that trust and
41:52 relationship. And I was once doing work in Europe. I may have shared the story with you in one of the other sessions, I don't remember. Um but one of the Europe We're doing work for European Union at the time and a German lawyer came over to me over breakfast. Uh this was in Denmark. And um he he says, "Yeah, I've got a couple of questions for you. Uh first of all, when we're dealing with American attorneys and American companies, they come in not just with two, three attorneys, but they come in with a whole army of attorneys. Mhm. And when they come in, each one is carrying reams of paper this high.
42:27 They said, "When we do business here in Europe, uh, we do a handshake and maybe write out a one-page document Mhm. as a memorandum of understanding. Uh, why is that? He asked me. So, I said, "I'll explain to you why that is." I said, "When you do business with somebody, you do it on the basis that you trust them. Right. And if you don't trust them, you won't do business with them until you've built that trust. Uh, and that's how you function and operate here this in Denmark in Europe, so that when you do do business, you feel quite comfortable with that human dynamic, with that relationship." Right.
43:02 >> I said, "In America, we do business on the basis that we can't trust each other. And in fact, one of the interesting secrets of America is that when you give your credit card to to, um, intake over the computer or the telephone, it's often times convicts in prison that are handling that." Okay. So, nobody's trusting anybody. It's based purely on a very strong in law enforcement and judicial system Mhm.
43:31 >> that keeps business running in America. But when you're dealing in family dynamics, that is not enough. Mhm. There it does get down to relationships, to and and and if the if that if there's that family emotion, 30 years ago, do you remember what happened? Do you remember what you did? Remember mom and dad taking your side in that? Mhm. Mhm. You know, that that becomes an obstruction to to resolving the issue here, because they're holding back from resolving the issue because I'm owed, not just for today, Right. but for 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago.
44:06 Right. Right. So interesting. I what you say about the fundamental difference of the basis on which business is done strikes me as accurate. So, my my my question is why do you think it's it's it's different in the United States versus Europe, for example? Um you know, that's a good question and I and to be fair, I haven't given it much thought until you really bring it up now. Um but you know, part of it is just the the scale and um
44:41 and and largeness of America. Um and doing business in America, you're doing it across states, you're doing it across the country. Um And and and the demographics are so huge and large and diverse. Uh in any business day, you could be dealing with five different nationalities. Mhm. Uh Europe is a lot more parochial. If you're in France, you're dealing with French. Well, maybe not so much anymore. Um but but at least in those days, um you know, if you if you're in in in Belgium, you're dealing with the Belgians. Um
45:16 it's a lot more parochial in that sense, maybe. I don't know, that's just a theory that comes to mind. Yeah. Um I mean, it's Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead. No, no, no, go. No, please go. So, I it strikes me that business has been done in Europe for a lot longer than it's been done here in the United States. I I was having a discussion with I don't remember who it was. The The United States in its current form is actually one of the oldest countries in the world in its, you know, based on what is the current form of government, right? But
45:51 France as a of sort of geographic entity has been around a lot longer. Uh Russia as a geographic entity has been around a lot longer. It's been under what, three, four different governments during the
46:01 >> Yes, and and France is already France is already in the fifth republic. We are only in our first. Right. Exactly. Right. But but it it it strikes me that um maybe as trivial as this sounds, you know, people in Europe have had a lot longer time to sort of get to know one another, figure each other out. And and the this I I know when I lived in Germany, the style of life is very different. It it It it just there's you know, business is not the uh intense focus of most people in
46:38 Europe, at least not as I experienced it, that it is here here in America. And and so interpersonal relationships, I think are I don't know. They they they I don't want to say they're valued more highly cuz I don't think that's quite it, but they're just more deeply interwoven into the society and culture there than they are here. Now, I think that's also a great point. Um I think that I think there's a lot of truth in that as well. I think that there may be a different aspect and I I beg my I beg the pardon of Americans
47:14 >> [laughter]
47:14 >> uh that are that are listening uh to this uh to this podcast. Uh and I mean no uh no ill intentions uh with what I'm about to say. Um purely just uh outlining some American phenomenon that I notice. And that is in America um the image that you portray is really important for business. Mhm.
47:39 >> [clears throat]
47:40 >> So, you know, if even if I can't afford a Bentley, if I can rent one to go to a business meeting, I would do it because it portrays a certain image even though there is no truth behind that image. Right. Uh so, there is a tendency in America to exaggerate for effect and for impression. Mhm. So project me being more successful than I really am. Mhm. So so that already it creates a foundation of lack of trust. And when I first came to to the United States, uh a very good friend of mine who is a
48:15 South African who had been here for many years, he said, "I have one word of advice I want to give you." And I said, "Well, what is that?" He said, "Whatever an American tells you, immediately cut it down by 50%."
48:28 >> [laughter]
48:32 >> And and if that's how the Europeans are seeing us, uh and that's how we seeing each other. Mhm. Uh well, then it makes sense that we, you know, we can't trust each other. The whole nature of society is built on non-trust. Well, and so and and you know, look, you and I you live in Orange County, I live in Los Angeles. We live in, you know, essential Well, what the
48:54 >> The heart The heart of that, yes. Right, the the the the the the capital of the world in creating images that don't really exist. I remember the first time I was signing a very large real estate transaction. This is very, very early on in my real estate career. And I was getting ready to go, and one of the people with whom I was working on on my side said, "Um now you have your Mont Blanc, don't you?" And I said, "What's a Mont Blanc?" Yeah, this is what made me think of it, right? Um and I said, "What's a Mont Blanc?" And he said,
49:25 >> But to be fair, I do have a French Waterman, too. Oh, yeah. So [laughter] I I have I have a Waterman, and I have a Mont Blanc, right? Okay, good. Right? So [laughter] he explained me I just I just rented mine for the session. Yeah. And and I said, [clears throat] "Oh, okay. Well, I'll I'll I knew someone who who owned a state, you know, back when you had individual, you know, stationary store." So I I I I I called her up, and I said, "Hey, [laughter] I you know, I need a Mont Blanc." And she's like and she kind of knew where my business was at, and she's like I don't think you can afford a Montblanc.
49:58 >> [laughter]
49:59 >> I said, "I It doesn't matter what I can afford it or not. I got to have one, I'm told." You know, right?
50:03 >> [laughter]
50:04 >> What did I know? I was, you know, in my mid mid maybe late 20s at the time, you know.
50:09 >> that that underscore That does two things, Kevin. First of all, it underscores uh uh the point that I've made earlier, but at the same time also shows how much you and I have become part of this culture.
50:20 >> [laughter]
50:21 >> Absolutely. I didn't know You know, to use the Yiddish word, I was just a pisher. I didn't know.
50:27 >> [laughter]
50:28 >> And this is what This is what they didn't tell me is Yes. when you hand your Montblanc to the other side to sign it, they keep it. Oh oh no, I used to have a I used to have a teacher back in in first grade, and we had to learn how to write with fountain pens in those days. Mhm. Um you didn't They didn't allow you to write with ballpoints. Um and she always used to say in when I was six or seven, "Three things you don't do. You don't lend out your wife, you don't lend out your car, and you don't lend out your fountain pen."
50:58 >> [laughter] [laughter]
51:05 >> You know, I think on that pithy piece of wisdom,
51:08 >> [laughter]
51:11 >> we will we will we will wrap things up. Um Good. Um But but you know, I I'm not going to I'm not going to wait as long as I did um last time to have you come back because there is there is so much uh good so many good ideas, so much good information, and and really just for for people to kind of chew on and think, "How How can I use this effectively to, you know, to make my services better, to make my life better, right?" I think that's really In the end, to me, that's that's
51:47 the brilliance of what you, you know, bring to the table. So. Yeah. Um it's it's very sad to see families torn apart. Absolutely. Absolutely. Well, do a quick wrap-up and then we'll we'll talk offline for a moment. So, thank you so much for joining us today. Really appreciate it. Um um if you have any uh thoughts, questions, comments, criticisms, all links to my social media will be in the show notes after the episode posts on on um uh YouTube and and feel free to leave those. Um Raphael's contact information will be
52:22 there as well if you want to get in touch with him. Um it it it you know, I this is time for [clears throat] a shameless plug, right? You know, he won't say this, okay? But um I I without getting into the specifics, I've been through a number of legal situations in the last four or five years. I can tell you there is no one I have better at negotiations and mediations than Raphael. And so, you will be extremely well served if if you were to engage Raphael to to help you out. So, uh you
52:59 know, uh my unqualified uh recommendation in in that regard. Uh let's see, tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. Pacific time is my show uh business lessons from the military. Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. Pacific time is my show people making money. So, hope you'll join me later in the week. And then, just a reminder, every other week at 5:00 p.m., you can join me at Jiggers' Place for a cocktail and a schmooze, and we'll talk about things completely unrelated to business. So, once again, thank you so much for
53:34 joining me. Raphael, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
53:38 >> Thank you, Kevin. Thank you so much. And signing off as I always do, Marie Darling, you are my bell. You know you are. Courage at all times, my friends.