Attorneys appear more and more frequently in business relocation matters, much to the chagrin of project managers and right-of-way directors. Agencies and their directors work under staunch deadlines and sometimes face severe penalties if the right of way is not cleared on time. In an overwhelming majority of cases, attorney involvement frustrates (if not outright halts) progress toward successful relocation. I have listened to several agents and directors openly question the real motives of some attorneys representing displaced persons in a business relocation. Unfortunately, the pattern always seems to be the same, and it’s not good for anyone.
Business relocations are designed by regulation to be a cooperative and a collaborative process. Successful business relocations require open lines of communication and free flow of information from the agency to the displaced business, and vice versa. When that communication or the free flow of information is disrupted, the system cannot operate as designed and the process breaks down. The agent’s job becomes unnecessarily difficult, and the displaced business risks unknowingly sacrificing some of its benefits.
We increasingly see the following pattern emerge in business relocation matters:
1. An attorney sends a letter of representation to the agency advising that he or she represents the displaced business on all relocation issues.
2. The attorney instructs agency personnel that all communications from the relocation agent or the agency must go through counsel.
3. The attorney insists on being present during all meetings between the agent and the landowner.
4. The attorney’s calendar is already full (shocker!), and that attorney claims to be “too busy” for a timely meeting, thereby delaying or denying rudimentary relocation interviews.
5. The gathering of important relocation information is delayed, sometimes for unreasonable amounts of time. Meanwhile, the contracted construction schedule is nearing.
6. The attorney may then communicate that the relocation benefits or services offered are insufficient or violate the URA. Ironically, this may be the result of the attorney’s interference with the relocation process.
7. The displaced business claims that it simply cannot move because (a) it has no place to go; (b) it has received no benefits; and (c) it has not been “made whole” by the relocation process. (We, of course, know that a displaced business is not entitled to being “made whole”).
8. The construction start date continues to get closer, placing tremendous pressure on the relocation agent and right-of-way director. After it’s almost too late, the exasperated agent begins to wonder if this was all orchestrated by design.
Under this scenario, despite his or her best and most sincere efforts, the relocation agent’s efforts are constantly stymied and progress towards clearing the right of way halts. Concern mounts that, despite the agency’s genuine efforts, the displaced business has not received any material relocation benefits, even though it was the business owner or his attorney who was frustrating the process. The agent and right-of-way director are beset with stress and exasperation. Meanwhile, the project deadline is in jeopardy, and many sleepless nights are ahead.
Unfortunately, relocation agents cannot force attorneys to be reasonable or displaced businesses to be cooperative. All they can do is make their best efforts to aggressively follow best practices and bring discipline to their procedures in order to complete the process.
But what are those best practices? And how can a well-meaning relocation agent avoid falling prey to an attorney’s trap, and avoid unnecessary stress and sleepless nights? Check back for our next installment where Kristen Bennett, SR/WA, R/W-RAC will provide us with some valuable answers.
In a perfect world, the relocation agent is well-versed in what is required and has the information, etc. readily available and provides it in an understandable manner. When I was in private practice, that was not always the case, especially when agents were replaced by others who did not have all of the background. Representing the business, my task was to help package the materials so that the agent could easily go through and determine what fit where in terms of benefits. My clients often did not know what should be provided and were given little guidance. I sought to make the process work – getting all the benefits to my clients to which they were entitled and in an expeditious manner – no one wants to go through the box of receipts I would get before I organized them. So while some attorneys make this less than cooperative or collaborative (knowing a duty to zealously represent a client), it is not always the private side that is the sole source of delay. Information should stream both ways, and bottlenecks can occur from either side.
Very valid points, Mr. Cate. Thank you for taking the time to reply and present a thoughtful commentary.