WHAT IF I DON'T

Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion is that to every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. For example, whatever force the hammer exerts on the nail, the nail returns in an equal and opposite measure.

This applies to objects and forces, but does it also apply to people? In other words, if Bob says or does something that provokes Tom, must Tom respond with an equal and opposite reaction? If Bob acts like a hammer, must Tom be the nail?

For much of my life I thought so. If you push me, I must push back in the name of interpersonal equilibrium. If I don’t  . . . well, what wouldhappen if I don’t? I could not say because I always did push back. I would always play the nail to the hammer. If I had to express this view in the vein of a law, I would have said “don’t let yourself get pushed around or something undesirable will happen to you." What that undesirable thing might be was not clear to me because I never asked myself what would happen if I don’t react. I always did, generally with anger.

Practicing law has caused me to rethink this. Litigation is a constant battle of action and reaction. When opposing counsel made a threat or demand on behalf of his client, I would show it to my client and present him with two choices. One, we can accede to the demand, or two, we can respond with a counter demand and a more ominous threat. Parties embroiled in litigation do not give in, so it was usually choice two, which would result in an elevated threat and demand from the other side. It was a cycle.

After years of watching these escalating threats and counter threats lead nowhere (and cost my clients unnecessary legal fees), a third choice emerged: the non-response. Just let the threat/demand go unanswered. When I present that third choice to clients, they initially reject it because they think it makes them “look weak.”

“Are you weak,” I ask.

“No, of course not,” they respond.

“Then what do you care how you look? This is litigation, not a beauty contest.” I reply.

Then I talk them through what was likely to happen—not how they would look—if we simply did not respond. The client would save money (by me not writing an unnecessary letter), we could remain focused on what was important (preparing for trial), and we could avoid repeating the escalatory cycle of threat and demand.

I also noticed a trend. The better an opposing lawyer was the less likely he would be to start the threat and demand cycle with me. It was the less skilled guy who would try to provoke a reaction. The reason, I have come to realize, is that he is afraid of trial and hopes to bully his way to a resolution without having to step foot in the courtroom. His tactics arise from his insecurity.

As it is with people in general. Everyone has a family member, friend, or co-worker who says or does things that seem to demand a response to maintain interpersonal equilibrium. We feel like we must respond to provocation like the nail to the hammer--but what would happen if we didn’t?

As with the low-skilled litigator, people who seek to provoke a reaction are doing so out of insecurity. They are afraid of something and want to spread that fear by eliciting an emotional reaction. So the only rational response is to decline the invitation.

In that situation, what if I don't should be the first question we ask ourselves.