A Relocation Agent’s Perspective: Dealing with Difficult Lawyers

What is a relocation agent to do when it’s time to conduct an initial interview with the owner of a displaced business and then gets the dreaded letter of representation from counsel? My first reaction is to scream, but that does not get the job done.

Let me be clear at the outset: I have worked with some wonderful attorneys who are very experienced in the world of eminent domain. They provide their clients a necessary and valuable service. In that instance, I can usually make a phone call to the attorney and explain my role as the relocation agent, the categories of reimbursement, and the project timeline. At this point, the good attorneys usually stand aside and let the process unfold as it was designed. They recognize that I am trained to provide their clients with the maximum benefits allowed under the Uniform Act and regulations. They also recognize that relocation assistance is a reimbursement program and that there is nothing really to “negotiate”. It is in their client’s best interests to establish direct communication with the displacee, which allows me to provide—and them to receive—adequate advisory services. This is clearly a win-win situation for all parties.

Conversely, the involvement of inexperienced attorneys (or those with ulterior motives) in the relocation process only stymies or halts the delivery of valuable benefits to the displaced business. That may sound harsh, but it is also reality. It can be dreadful to deal with lawyers who either have little knowledge of the relocation process or who are intentionally stalling the process. When faced with this challenge, the agent’s job is significantly more difficult, but that agent still has a responsibility to provide relocation assistance to the displacee. She might begin by contacting the attorney to introduce herself and explain her role. The attorney sometimes directs the agent to refrain from contacting the displacee directly. In this case, the agent should firmly tell the lawyer that the agent is required by law to deliver a notice of eligibility to the displacee, and that s/he will copy counsel on any written correspondence. The agent may attempt to set up a meeting with the lawyer and displaced business owner(s), yet find that the lawyer’s schedule is too full to accommodate a timely meeting. In this case, it is important to emphasize the importance of direct, unobstructed communication between the agent and the displacee in order to maximize their benefits. Here is how this process can unfold:

1. The relocation agent receives a letter of representation.
2. The agent contacts the attorney and explains her role and the relocation process.
3. The attorney agrees to pass this information along to the client, yet refuses to allow the agent to contact the displacee directly. Counsel insists that all correspondence be directed to him or her.
4. The agent explains that relocation notices will be sent directly to the displacee, with a courtesy copy to counsel.
5. The agent is not permitted to conduct a site visit, prepare an inventory, or conduct an initial interview. At this point, the process is already behind schedule.
6. An initial offer is made and the 90-day notice is sent to the displacee with a copy to the attorney.
7. For the following 3 months there is no communication….no meetings….no returned calls…nothing…
8. The agent continues to document repeated attempts to communicate with the attorney in the contact log.
9. The parcel closes.
10. A 30-day notice to vacate is sent to the displacee with a copy to the attorney.
11. The attorney finally allows a meeting with the displacee.
12. The displacee has not chosen a replacement site and has already moved a lot of the inventory to their house in anticipation of a move.
13. The displacee is not likely to be paid for items moved before meeting with the agent because s/he did not provide a valid inventory of the personal property on site at the time of the displacement. There is no way to verify that these items were ever at the subject site and the agency will likely deny the claim.
14. The displacee declined a viable replacement site because it required new flooring (or some other modification), which the displacee did not think that they could afford. This might have been easily categorized as a reestablishment expense, unbeknownst to the attorney or the displacee.
15. The displaced business is not prepared to move and is not cooperating with the relocation agent because they perceive a lack of communication–which was actually caused by their attorney!
16. The condemning authority is eventually forced to evict the displaced business, triggering possible project delays, unexpected expenses, and a publicity nightmare!