Month: June 2008

This is the conclusion of my three-part article on people I have encountered in the real estate business. I continue my discussion with developers, contractors and property managers.

I have come across some of the worst – the notorious breed of builders and developers. They are like car salespeople but mutated beyond the realm of humanity. They have developed (pun intended) the ability to bypass their conscience to amass wealth by unethical and devious means. They have no qualms about making false allegations and malafide claims to extort others while refusing to acknowledge bona fide claims against themselves.

Contractors can be good or bad. They tend to do business on their own terms, usually forsaking business principles. Estimates and quotes mean nothing to micro businesses; one must pay what they ask for regardless of what has been agreed to, for them to ever do any work for you again. They show up to perform service if and when they please. They do not take kindly to being made aware of their contractual obligations.

Property managers expect to be paid something for nothing. They shirk responsibility if anything goes wrong, and it usually does, because they expect a property to be taken care of just by dispatching contractors over the phone, without being on site to supervise. They care more about their relationships with their contractors (their “friends”) than about doing justice to their clients. Of course then, they will pay whatever a contractor asks for because it is not worth losing a contractor over one client account. They do not understand the concept of work being done right the first time, and in a timely fashion.

My operations manager presented a property management firm with a six-page written report of what the agent assigned to the property had done wrong. The owner did nothing except say that it was “water under the bridge” – based on the agent denying ever having received instructions, the purported lack of which led to the misdoings. When reported to the organization whose logo their tout on their advertising as an endorsement of their ethical standards, the organization favoured the “friend”, in this case the member who pays their ongoing sustenance. The report led to harassing phone calls every few minutes from the owner of the property management firm, calling our operations manager a liar and an extortionist, and threatened to reveal privileged information pertaining to the tenants to each and every tenant and sue us for libel, as a means to get us to withdraw the complaint.

This is part two of my experiences with people in the real estate business. I continue with real-life examples of solicitors.

I have always believed that a solicitor should represent the client’s interest vehemently and above all else. I have come across two solicitors who gave precedence to their “friendship” with an involved party over the client’s interest. I would term such “friendship” a “profitable alliance”, as the “friend” is merely a person with whom they expect to have a longer-term, ongoing profitable relationship as opposed to a one-time client.

In the first case, the solicitor who is also a landlord leasing his own property through this broker “friend” of his, wrote to me,

I have an ongoing relationship with [my friend]. I am not prepared to act in any way which adversely affects that long term relationship. Consequently, I am reluctant to act for you with respect to the request which you made regarding [my friend].

This was a simple matter of the “friend” splitting the legal costs with me since we were to equally share the potential settlement funds; and to which arrangement the “friend” had agreed, and that is exactly how it went down, albeit with another solicitor. But what about my time and costs for the other solicitor to review the case from scratch, having to pay legal fees and explain the case all over again? If such are the ethics of a Queen’s Counsel, it corroborates my belief that a rat by any other name is still a rat.

In the second case, I represented the vendor in a sale and purchase transaction that had closed. My solicitor continued forwarding requests when originating from the purchaser as a favour to my broker who in this case was the “friend”, who in turn was doing this on the behest of the purchaser’s broker who was his “friend”. When it came to my single request of my solicitor, to similarly forward my reply to the purchaser in response to their notice of claim, it met with the response,

Your file is closed. I have 300 other clients to take care of now.

I say if you have 300 or 800 or “whatever the magic number of the day is” clients and my file is closed, why is your valve still open in one direction?

One of my not-too-bitter experiences was with a solicitor who gave precedence to his image over the client’s interest. He did not want to argue my case to an extent that might lower his esteem in the eyes of a judge as he apparently banks on their favour.

Then there are the rude ones, who believe that they are entitled to any amount of money and treat their clients or prospective clients like dirt, because they foster the fallacious belief that they offer superior representation and clients are inferior beings. I once asked a solicitor of a prominent law firm if he would be willing to cap his fee. His response was that there are lawyers out there who would be willing to cap the fee if I am looking to cheap out, but if I want a good defense the fee would be whatever it takes, with a minimum $5,000 retainer and tens of thousands of dollars in trial.

Do these lawyers think we are stupid enough to pay them that much, that too in a civil matter which could be settled (with no risk of an appeal) for much less? They don’t tell you that, because they profit more from a trial.

To be continued…

I recently retired from the commercial real estate rental business. It was a disillusioning experience at best. In this three-part article I categorically describe the kinds of people I came across. Let’s start with legal counsel.

Lawyers are usually deal breakers, as are lease coaches. If a client wishes to proceed with an agreement to lease, one would think their counsel would encourage them to disregard minor issues in the greater interest. Not so, because most lawyers and lease coaches only care about making themselves look good, to demonstrate how hard they are working for their client’s dollar by needlessly splitting hairs and nit picking on wordings. Who gains from the fighting? Only legal counsel. It is an entirely different matter if a client regrets having entered into an agreement, because then their counsel would deem it to be an appropriate course of action to find every loophole to get out of the agreement – not that it is ethical, but at least it is in the client’s interest.

Solicitors usually want a slice of the pie in any purchase or sale transaction. Why else would they ask what the value of the transaction is when quoting a fee? Their excuse is that they have to be that much more diligent in a larger transaction. Why would they be less diligent in a smaller transaction? For litigation, solicitors repeat themselves often and whet all correspondence to protect themselves, thus racking up billable hours. They even bill you if they misunderstand the facts, whereby you have to explain the case to them all over again – admitting to a mistake would not be profitable, both in terms of saving face, their job and billable hours.

They are all out to make money. However it gets worse when your solicitor has other interests that take precedence over representing you, that too on your dime.

To be continued…

Society is increasingly litigious. This comes from believing that another person owes one for whatever reason, and the only way to get what is owed is to be aggressive and snatch it away from that person, rather than ask nicely. The belief itself might be unsubstantiated, let alone the unscrupulous means deployed to get what is supposedly owed.

Contrary to popular belief, a store does not owe a refund or even an exchange for merchandise that one decides to return, unless it is part of the conditions of sale. Just because a store extends a courtesy, it does not make it one’s right in the defense of which one should get obnoxious and argumentative in order to snatch what is not rightfully owed.

People are accustomed to demanding what they consider to be their right, such as their expectations of another person’s duty and obligation to them, while paying no heed to their own duties and obligations to others, because doing so would not be profitable.

So it all comes down to profit. Society has forsaken morals and humanity for profit. How can one expect to lead a fulfilled life while constantly fighting over money through disputes, claims and lawsuits and have no time to live every moment to the fullest?