For him, it’s a point of honor, he doesn’t take any crap, and sometimes he’s even proud of it. Occasionally he gets lost, and yet he commands our respect: the fighter.
Do you hear it too, that clanking of metal?
In the phenomenology of our bidding types, the fighter must not be missing. He does not carry weapons, his chants are not necessarily loud and wild, nor does he shake clenched fists. In a state governed by the rule of law, he makes use of quite different means: friendly inquiries, cunning and also stalling, threats and sometimes even a lawyer. What makes us lawyers particularly happy — so much honesty is necessary.
How he sees the client
The fighter certainly also understands the client as a partner, but as a rather difficult one. As someone who does not understand him, who does not listen to him. Who does not let reason prevail, who does not give the fighter what is due to the fighter. The fighter does not disrespect the client at all, he just simply lives in the assumption that the client pursues opposite, not only different, but often diametrically opposed interests. Just as the fighter does!
You already feel it, mostly the fighter is not very empathic. It is difficult for him to imagine that other people are moved by completely different forces than his own will. In fact, the client, as the fighter sees him, has a will of his own, an opposite will. This includes that he simply does not want to understand that the fighter has to win. That it is the noblest task of the client to declare the fighter the winner after — with pleasure also violent — resistance. To let him have his way. The fighter sees the public client, the specialized office, the awarding authority ultimately as a body with a different will. He must break this will, circumvent it, let it run into the void — it doesn’t matter, the only thing that matters is that his will prevails. The will of the fighter.
More than money?
Is our fighter concerned with more than just the filthy lucre? Oh yes! Of course, the fighter believes that the clients would ultimately only manage his money, and they would only reluctantly, much too reluctantly, hand over this money to him. And that also without any right, after all, according to the fighter, it is ultimately his money, the money due to him, his remuneration, compensation, the just reward for all the drudgery.
But for all the emphasis on money, it’s usually about something else. About what, you ask yourself now. The fighter may speak of recognition or of fairness. He may recognize the strategic importance of a dispute or speak somewhat vaguely of opportunities in the future. All this exists with the fighter. And all that is ultimately uninteresting. The fighter — and you must understand this when you meet one — the fighter wants to prevail. He wants to win. The fighter wants his will.
So, a squabbler?
If you now want to get to the heart of the matter, if terms like lawsuit-monger, squabbler, quarreler, etc. pop into your head, then this little contribution will have to be continued. Because then you haven’t quite grasped what I want to tell you. The fighter can be very prudent. He may even seem honorable. He may also deliberately refrain from certain quarrels because he defines his battle zone in a different way that is still unknown to you. Because he does not consider the time for an open battle, with which he would have no problems, to have come yet. The fighter can be like that, but he can also come across as a very bad type, who lies and cheats or doesn’t seem to have himself under control at any time. All this is contingent, it is completely random. It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of being a fighter. The fighter is concerned with something else, yes, with something higher and at the same time also infinitely empty: the success of his will. The fighter wants to win, he wants to assert himself, he wants to assert his will — possibly also at the price of his own downfall.
The fighter — and this distinguishes him from the complainer, who is often simply a right-winger, a pure critic — the fighter certainly acknowledges that he may be wrong. He is not blind-minded per se, he just never gives up. He may even be circumspect, reserved in demeanor, appear modest and quiet, all of which is contingent, meaning: it is pure chance. What is decisive is that he fights. He fights, if he is a real fighter, with all means, not only with those of the law, and that means he will not give up any advantage, unless he wants it that way, and he will not rest until it is irrefutably established, even from his point of view, that he is defeated. Fighters do not die, they lose the appeal.
And how do you win?
When you encounter a fighter, whether in the supplemental battle or in the award process, give him something to win. Show him an area — without telling him — where he can win. Again, show him, but don’t tell him. To get along with fighters, you have to be strong-willed yourself. But also unpretentious. You must — if you want to get ahead — be willing to lose. Don’t be upset or disappointed now! I am not asking you to give in. On the contrary, you as the client should be happy to win. Only, to do so, you must also lose something. You have to give the fighter something to win if you want to have peace. An effective means, for example, is to open another combat zone, which from your point of view is not so important, but which you must make extremely important to the outside world. Think of unpleasant, dangerous grounds for exclusion in the award procedure, the exact content of which has not yet been clarified by case law. Or of other, soon-to-be-issued tenders that are less formal and leave you more room for maneuver. But don’t say it, for God’s sake. Never say to the fighter that if he does or doesn’t do this or that, you will. Show him. He has to figure it out for himself. Show him and let him win a battle. While you are winning the war.
What Teddy Roosevelt teaches us
Does the name Teddy Roosevelt sound familiar? A bear hunter and soldier, and ultimately even U.S. president from the beginning of the 20th century. A gifted orator, razor-sharp analyst, in short: a completely different caliber than the current incumbent. He gave a famous speech in Paris in 1910. Its title is “Citizenship in a Republic”. I don’t want to deprive you of the most famous quote from this speech — which is also one of my favorites. It reads as follows: “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
The fighter may be overdoing it. Perhaps he is trapped in a Manichaean world view characterized by antagonisms. Possibly he also does not know his own interests, only his will, which must be by no means identical with it. And perhaps this will is inconceivably empty. One thing, however, our fighter is not. He is not one of those cold and fearful souls, as Teddy Roosevelt calls them. The place of the fighter is never with the cold and fearful souls. And you have to hand it to him.
*This legal tip is not a substitute for legal advice in individual cases. By its very nature, it is incomplete, nor is it specific to your case, and it also represents a snapshot in time, as legal principles and case law change over time. It cannot and does not cover all conceivable constellations, serves entertainment and initial orientation purposes and is intended to motivate you to clarify legal issues at an early stage, but not to discourage you from doing so.