Stop the madness!

I know I post on this every so often. I still don't get it. Why do lawyers insist on playing games in trying to resolve disputes? Why do we try to hide the ball? What is hoped to be gained?

Look, my goals are very simple in handling cases and yours should be too: resolve the case most favorably to a client at a fair price. It is that simple. So, if you have a choice of doing A, which does not move the case towards conclusion and costs the client money, or doing B, which moves the case towards conclusion at some cost to the client, go with B. You will be happier every time.

Okay, so I am idealistic. Want a dollars and sense reason to do it? Imagine your client challenges your bill at the end of the case. In California, we have mandatory fee arbitration. You go to the fee arbitration and the arbitrator says to you "Mr. Stein, why did you force your opponent to file a motion that you lost when you knew you would lose? You charged your client 2 hours for that." It doesn't matter what your answer is. You just lost credibility to the fee arbitrator and that statement may get the client to think that not only does he have a fee arbitration issue, but he may also have a malpractice case.

It doesn't matter if he actually has a malpractice case, if he thinks he does and files a claim with your insurance or files a lawsuit against you, you have to pay your deductible. Now you are out of pocket the money for the fee arbitration and your deductible.

So, before you do something, make sure that you are moving your cases towards resolution.

Comments

[Brooks Schuelke]

Keep preaching. I am often amazed at some of the ridiculous motions/arguments I face that, when unsuccessful, simply draw a "we had to try it" response from opposing counsel.

I enjoy your blog. Keep up the good work.