Presenting your case to the Grievance Committee

Getting your point across quickly and concisely

By Jack D'Aurora

So, you have an ethics complaint or a commission claim that you want to present to the Grievance Committee? Here are a few thoughts on how to best communicate your message. These ideas have been imparted to me by lawyers who are skilled in the written word and also come as the result of my time on the Grievance Committee, where I have waded through many a document that was difficult to read.

The first point to understand is that your audience has a limited amount of time to read your document. Sorry, but it's true. Your document might be one of ten or so to be reviewed by committee members who are taking time away from work to read your document. So, make your document easy to read.

Model the style that newspaper journalists employ -- short sentences, short paragraphs. Why don't newspapers print long paragraphs? Because readers typically skip them. They're too hard to read.

Start with a concise statement of the issue. You should be able to tell the committee what the problem is in two sentences. If you can't do that, then for your own sake you need to get a better handle on what the issue is.

Next, tell the committee the facts -- just the facts. No argument, no adverbs, no snide comments, no cries of indignation -- just the facts. This is not to say you have to be dry in your writing. As an old trial lawyer once said when asked if it is permissible to exaggerate the facts in settlement talks: "No! But you can certainly package the facts attractively." A well scripted summary of the facts will get your point across more effectively than a litany about how preposterous the situation is or how scurrilously the other side acted.

An example of a less than compelling factual summary: Mr. Bad Guy lied to us repeatedly about the sump pump. I don't know how he could keep a straight face when he said it had been repaired. Does he think we fell off the turnip truck yesterday?

A better approach: On February 15, Mr. Bad Guy told me by phone that ABC Repairs had repaired the sump pump and that it was working fine. I asked if the work carried a warranty, and he assured me it did. On February 19, however, Joe Technician of ABC Repairs told me that he had explained to Mr. Bad Guy that the pump should be replaced and that, because of the pump's age, his repair work carried no warranty.

The first version shows anger but provides little factual information. The second covers two pointed lies.

Keep your readers focused. Break the document into sections: introduction, facts, etc. Use topic sentences. Think about guiding your readers through the problem. Tell the committee only what its needs to know. If you are claiming a commission, your case might hinge on just two or three key things that you did. Focus on them.

Voluminous writing about peripheral matters will detract from the impact of your story. A daily summary of everything you did during the course of representing a client for 30 days (believe me, we've seen it) is a waste of paper and off-putting. Remember, there could be a curmudgeon or two (not me, of course) who might just discount what you say because of how difficult it is to get through your document.

Personal issues seldom have any importance. The fact that you have been a broker for 20 years and never before had to fight for a commission adds nothing to your story. Twenty years without a commission fight means only that you've been lucky. Tell the committee the key facts that support your contention that you were the procuring cause (and have a good idea of what it means to be a procuring cause).

Attach only those exhibits that help tell your story. Giving your entire file to the committee means your readers will have to spend time poring over exhibits that should be used evaluating your case. If your agency disclosure statement and consumer guide do not add to your story, do not attach them. Your readers will appreciate your courtesy, and the Sierra Club will hold you in high regard for your economy. If you are attaching more than just a few exhibits, separate them with colored paper or tabs and clearly mark them as "Exhibit 1," etc.

The next step is to explain why your claim or ethics allegation has merit. State the rule or ethics code at issue and explain how the facts you have presented support your claim. As a gentle reminder, avoid the emotional outbursts. Sure, the other guy may be a ne'er-dowell who should rot in the bowels of hell for his misdeeds, but putting your vitriol on paper makes your readers wince and reflects badly on you.

Treat the situation as objectively as possible. Communicate with the thought of being an advocate for your position, not as someone complaining about having been wronged.

The next-to-final step is the conclusion. Tell the committee what you want. You may think the end game is implicit. Often it is, but why leave something this important to chance? Besides, what you take for granted may not be so clear to your readers. So, tell them exactly what you want.

The final step is to ask a trusted friend, who knows nothing of the situation, to read your document. This person should be able to understand your position and what you seek merely from reading your document. If questions have to be asked of you, you need to go back to the drawing board. If that friend is a REALTOR® and does not understand your position, then one of you has a problem.

Take the time to ensure the document is flawless in terms of content and approach. Remember, your job is to do everything possible to get your point across. If you succeed, the only question should be whether your point has merit.

Jack D'Aurora is a practicing lawyer with Luper Neidenthal & Logan and a REALTOR® with Group One Realty Inc.

Click here for more info on the REALTOR Code of Ethics, sample case interprestations and how to file a complaint.