What's really bothering you?

Veterinary school and law-school training actually have quite a bit in common. For example, when I finished each, I soon realized just how huge was the volume of practical things I needed to know but did not.

In law school, they teach you how to handle the jurisdictional questions arising if a car accident involved a New Jersey driver operating a vehicle registered in Arizona but which actually happened during a day trip to Mexico. Nobody mentioned, though, mundane stuff like what pieces of paper would need to be filed in order to get that case on a trial calendar.

My newly graduated associate veterinarians might have been the best at developing a rule-out list of both common and rare differentials based on a pile of clinical pathology data. Unfortunately, they often are not quite so hot on boring stuff like passing a urinary catheter on a girl Schnauzer.

But for all of the high-level detail analysis these types of schooling have in common, I would like to know why more veterinarians are not skilled in distinguishing what information in their own legal lives is relevant and what is not. As doctors, we are trained to do triage, which essentially means determining what is most important and what is less so.

So here is my question: Why do many veterinarians who call me for advice on employment contracts, partnership documents and assorted employer-employee disputes suddenly decide to throw critical thinking out the window? How come a telephone consultation which should take 35 minutes ends up taking two hours? So many scientifically trained veterinarians somehow become babbling fountains of irrelevancy when talking or writing to an attorney.

To clarify my point, imagine the following hypothetical scenario similar to many I have heard over the phone:

Dr. Z took a job with a farm/small-animal practice two years ago, and it is time for updating the employment contract executed at hire. Over the last 18 months, Dr. Z has observed her employer following poor inventory practices with respect to controlled substances and otherwise ignoring management. Also, the boss hired another veterinarian with only one year more experience than Dr. Z but started her at 50 percent more than Dr. Z's current salary. Meanwhile, Dr. Z strongly suspects that the new vet has a substance-abuse problem but so far nothing has been done about the new hire's odd behavior.

Dr. Z is irritated on several levels. She wants to get a raise that would put her above the new hire, even though that would amount to an increase far above what she probably will be offered. She tells herself:

• "I think that jerky new vet is some kind of drug addict, and she is getting all that money."

• "I probably should turn in my boss for not keeping decent track of the narcotics, especially now that she is here."

• "I hope I can get out of my non-compete because I probably should blow this management-catastrophe hospital."

• "Did you know the owner's daughter is the manager, and even she makes more than I do?"

• "Plus, when I came here, they implied that I could buy in eventually, and they haven't said anything."

Comparative importance

Aside from merely indulging herself in self-pity, what is Dr. Z telling us in this rant (which she probably has run through a hundred times in her head and then again a few times with her attorney)?

This doctor is dissatisfied with multiple aspects of her job but has not prioritized them. Do her boss' sloppy ways really bug her that much, or is she bothered more by the fact that she never got any written commitment regarding partnership?

Does she actually want to stay on as an owner of this "management-catastrophe hospital?" Or, is she unsure whether she wants to renew her existing contract (regardless of the remuneration)?

Is it really her inability to have any input in hiring practices that disturbs her the most? Obviously she doesn't like nepotism, and yet neither is she thrilled with the staff member selected by the boss from outside.

What is my motivation?

Why is this vet beating herself up over the salary of the new doctor? Is it because she is mad at herself for not asking for more money when she was hired, or is she outraged by the possibility that the practice sees much more value in another doctor with similar experience for some reason?

What does Dr. Z really want? More money than she thinks she can realistically get? A say in hiring and firing decisions? Escape from her non-compete terms? Perhaps she wants the satisfaction of turning in her boss to a drug-enforcement agency and/or causing the initiation of a workplace investigation of the new doctor's alleged drug habit?

The attorney's conundrum

This is what we lawyers hear on the other end of the telephone. Dr. Z calls and asks us to draft a proposed renewal employment agreement for the next year, which will somehow fix all of her workplace dissatisfaction.

Obviously, no contract or any document, no matter how carefully drafted, can resolve all these interlocking problems. Not until the law client/veterinarian gives at least some thought as to what is important, what constitutes minutiae and what her true objectives are in creating the document.

Organizing thoughts

Contracts and other documents are designed merely to memorialize the wishes of the individuals for whom they are drawn. If the party requesting a document doesn't really know or hasn't effectively thought through her objectives, it is virtually impossible to write even a decent rough draft.

Before making any major life decision, and especially before signing any paper you or anyone else has drafted and which has legal effects, brainstorm the situation and identify the truly key goals to be sought.

Ask yourself important and difficult questions. Write down the answers you come up with for future reference. Here are some examples of questions I frequently recommend to my clients before we have any detailed consultations:

1) Where do you see yourself life-wise and career-wise in five years? What about 10 years?

2) Is the person you are currently working for someone you can live with indefinitely? If not, has he shown any inclination to leave anytime in the future?

3) Are you absolutely sure you can ever be happy working for someone else?

4) Do you have a concrete financial plan that will make you creditworthy enough to pursue a partnership if one were actually offered?

5) On what concrete basis have you determined that your services are worth the money you want to be paid in the future? Would an outside, objective observer agree that you are worth that much? If so, why?

6) Can you recognize the elements of your job that are pertinent to this agreement (whether shareholder, partnership, employment, non-compete or whatever type) and those which clearly are not? For example, probably you cannot change your boss' behavior much, nor stop that new hire from making so much money. So do you have the intestinal fortitude to look past these annoyances? Can you first identify, then subsequently focus on, what you truly want and are able to control, and thereby meaningfully participate in the drafting of a proposed document?

It means thinking hard, identifying what is most important and setting aside the peripheral for a later time.

It's just triage, doctor.

Dr. Allen is president of the Associates in Veterinary Law P.C., which provides legal and consulting services to veterinarians. Call (607) 754-1510 or visit info@veterinarylaw.com.