In the intricate world of legal practice, my friend PP, a seasoned immigration lawyer, once shared a fascinating policy with me: tears were strictly prohibited in his office. This decree arose from numerous encounters where individuals from within his community, seemingly in emotional distress, leveraged their tears to negotiate hefty discounts, only for him to later find out their financial prosperity. PP’s decision to enact this rule was pragmatic, borne out of experiences that taught him to be wary of manipulative tactics disguised as genuine emotion. As we discussed his rationale, I couldn’t help but empathize with the challenges he faced, because it was my experience too.
Curiosity piqued, I inquired further about how he implemented this ‘no-cry’ policy. His response was straightforward yet insightful. PP explained that he deliberately spread the word within his community that shedding crocodile tears in his office would result in unfavorable traditional consequences. This preemptive measure, he claimed, effectively sifted through the genuine cases from those attempting to deceive. While I respected PP’s approach, I couldn’t help but wonder about the nuances of emotion and the potential ramifications of such a stringent policy.
Little did I know that soon, I would encounter a tear-related incident that would challenge my own assumptions and shed light on the dangers of misconceptions.
It was a day like any other when I delivered the news of successful immigration status to a client. Overwhelmed with joy, she requested a moment in the reception area to collect herself. Obliging her request, I returned to my tasks, unaware of the unfolding drama.
Moments later, a call from a friend, DF, disrupted the tranquility of my office. His inquiry about the development in my workspace caught me off guard. “What’s happening over there?” he questioned. Perplexed, I sought clarification. His response left me stunned: he believed that a client’s immigration application had been rejected due to tears shed in my office. Hastily dismissing his concerns, I rushed to verify the situation.
To my relief, the truth emerged: the tears were not of despair but of sheer elation. The client’s immigration journey had culminated in success, marking a long-awaited reunion with her family after a decade of separation. As I reassured DF of the misunderstanding, the gravity of the situation dawned on me. Misinterpretations fueled by assumptions could have dire consequences, not only for professional reputations but also for the individuals involved.
Seizing the opportunity for reflection, I engaged in a candid conversation with Mr. KH, the individual who had jumped to conclusions and who had informed DF, who referred him to me for professional assistance that a client of mine had been refused her immigration application and had been crying. His genuine remorse and acknowledgment of the negative bias underlying his assumption were a testament to the importance of challenging default judgments. Through this experience, I learned valuable lessons about empathy, communication, and the dangers of relying solely on outward appearances to gauge inner emotions.
In the labyrinth of legal practice and perhaps often other professional practices, where emotions run high and perceptions often deceive, this incident served as a very important reminder to tread carefully and approach each situation with discernment and compassion.
NB: Johnson Babalola, a Canada based lawyer, leadership consultant and corporate emcee, is a public affairs analyst.
