Philosophical Digression

So, do I get to digress off topic, even though this is supposed to be a professional blog? But of course I do, because it's mine. I'm starting to get why so many people start one of these deals.

We have had some big changes to our office in Chicago, at the same time as readying our Michigan office for its opening on December 1, 2006. The changes in Chicago were all organizational and cosmetic. It took quite a bit of effort, but the improvements are worth it. We have new carpet, new paint on the way, and we got rid of nearly two dumpsters of stuff we didn't need. Those changes were met with skepticism and reticence by staff (you know who you are :)), but we plowed ahead and did everything we set out to do, and the office is cleaner, more pleasant to the eye and most importantly, more functional for our client's sake. The question that arose during the process, and one that arises in all of our lives on a daily basis, was, when does functionality trump appearance? And on a broader level, should appearance ever matter?

I guess I'd answer those questions separately. Functionality can be more relevant than appearance, but in the professional realm, they merge. Clients trust us more if the office looks good. We find things more easily, saving valuable time, when we have two dumpsters less of stuff in the way. Maybe the better question is, why do we judge, at least initially, based on appearance?

The messy lawyer's office might be able to produce a better product than the neat freak. I've seen some pretty fine lawyers with horrendously cluttered offices. But I've seen more top-shelf lawyers with neat offices. I believe that is because highly functional people are generally well-organized, because it saves time. Time is the only asset we have (as professionals and as people) that we cannot make more of. That finite resource can only be economized, but never replicated. That means that as professionals (and people), we had better have a concrete plan. Not in a broad sense, but in an everyday sense. I map out my day down to the :10 block the night before, so that I am never meandering through my day. I have to, or I'd never be able to get as much done as I need to in order to practice at the level I aspire to be at in this profession.

Similarly, everyone has to have a personal plan if you don't want to be on your deathbed wondering why you lived so haphazardly - and my guess is a whole bunch of people find themselves in exactly that situation. I'd submit that the appearance of organization personally might not mean you have a neat car or a neat house. The need for organization and functionality in one's personal life does not revolve so much around tidiness in the physical surrounding as it does in the emotional wherewithal of a person. What I mean by that is, to be fully functional - to be able to meet your goals, explore this incredible world, grow as a human being - you have to be able to convey your own needs, see to the other people's needs in your own life that you've promised that to, and have a nearly constant dialogue about both, or those relationships get screwed up in a hurry. That applies to spouses, partners, friends and family. A part of that is mapping out the boundaries that you will respect, as well as beyond which you won't feel/owe obligations to the other party. All of that is what constitutes organization on a personal level.

Some of that personal (emotional) organization bleeds over to us as professionals as well. Whenever I have a crying client in my office - and I don't often; generally that only happens at the first consultation when things are a mess before we have had a chance to make things better - I always tell the person I'm not going to be able to be in that place with them. I can't. My job is as simple as it is complicated: analyze the problem, map out a strategy for fixing the problem, and then getting to it. Line 'em up and knock 'em down, one by one, step by step, until we will the sought after result to happen in reality. I would like to empathize, hold the persons hand, and tell them I feel their pain, but that's beyond my role in their life. I understand their dilemma, and I'll do what I can to fix it (which is usually enough), but I can't be their friend or surrogate family.

Appearances do matter to the extent they impact function. Judging based on appearances is overrated, and usually not accurate, and maybe that is the point worth mulling over. Thanks for allowing the digression. Back to immigration law next time.

The Details are Everything

Some people excel at details, while others avoid them because it's not their cup; lawyers, generally, had better be excellent at details. Immigration lawyers on the other hand, have to take it to a whole different level. The details are everything. I'll give you an example or two today.

There is a man who came to the United States as an asylee from Turkey in 1990. He gained political asylum by applying with the INS (now defunct; it's now the Department of Homeland Security, with separate divisions for different enforcement and benefits), explaining that his political activity in Turkey led to the government torturing him at length. The INS agreed, and granted him asylum. One year later, he applied for permanent residence, as the law allows asylees who have been here to adjust their status to that of a permanent resident. On the form, called an I-485, the question was asked, "Have you ever been arrested"? The spirit of the question is simple: the government wants to know whether applicants have had criminal problems with the police so as to screen out undesirables. This man had of course disclosed his prior arrests in Turkey, because those occasions were also when he was tortured. I was not his lawyer at that time, but the lawyer who filled out the Form I-485 checked "no", thinking the torture arrests did not count, and besides that, the government obviously knew about those incidences, because that is what brought him to the U.S. with their permission.

Seven years later, the same man applied for naturalization to become a U.S. Citizen. During that process, the government decided - for reasons that are open to interpretation, ranging from political reasons, to retribution for his asserting his right to a decision on his application by filing a lawsuit against the government - that he had lied on his adjustment of status form by checking "no" on the arrest question. In other words, they decided that he lied because he did not tell him again of the very reason he was allowed to be in the U.S. Not only did they deny his bid for citizenship, but they used the "no" box as one reason for charging him as deportable, and placed him deportation proceedings.*

The lawyer who filled out the form is someone I know, and is very competent. It wasn't his fault, plain and simple. The incident is illustrative though, because it shows that one box can make the difference in a client's life. It is insanely technical, this area of the law; and that makes it insanely stressful for us as lawyers and as staff. Everything we touch bears the weight of someone's future.

I once had an associate lawyer who worked for us who quit after handling a litigation matter where someone's life was quite literally at stake. If the person was deported, he would be killed by an opposing militia. The rest of his family had already been killed, and the militia hated his family so that they wanted to erase his family name from the country. That lawyer missed a detail, and I was quite irritated with the error. It wasn't an error that cost the case, or even changed the odds of success. But any error can - sometimes you don't know until the case plays out. This lawyer was smart enough to know himself, and knew this area of the law wasn't for him. I respected that insight and honesty.

The way to stay on top of, and ahead of, the details is systems. We have worked tirelessly to develop systems, with multiple checks, to monitor dates, to check for errors on forms, to be sure everything is included in evidence packets to the government and the courts. We are meticulous with the details, because they are everything with this area of practice. I catalog all 200 open cases in my mind, and constantly run though them whenever I have free time at work. My getting ready for work in the morning is part of my work day - I work through the cases in my mind. I do the same on my way to and from work. I do it while waiting for interviews at the CIS, or while waiting for my cases to be called in Court. I tote a list around with me, with my daily calendar, with other lists for each category. I get reports each day from my staff, and they each keep multiple lists themselves that I review on a daily basis. It might seem like overkill, but it is completely necessary. Mostly though, we use technology to our advantage by using good case management software, and by having checklists for every step of every case.

We have never had a malpractice claim, or had a bar complaint filed against us, so I think we are doing it right. But that doesn't stop me from constantly working on better systems, or from thinking about case #193 while showering in the morning. That is the life of an immigration lawyer.

*This person's story is detailed here; I am one of several attorney's working on his case, and he has waived confidentiality of his story so that the public understands what is happening to him. His case has been profiled on national media, including Nightline and NPR on several occasions.