I’m pretty surprised at many lawyers’ inability to avoid discussing certain topics with opposing counsel that in my opinion make themselves look bad or more importantly, weaken their clients case. Personally, I think discernment when it comes to topics to discuss and facts to volunteer is in like the top 3 “must have” skills for lawyers. Yet I come across many lawyers who suffer from diarrhea-of-the-mouth. It’s a common American malady but Jane Public just makes herself look like an idiot whereas Jane Lawyer potentially weakens her clients case immensely.
Here are two that stick in my craw…and one is VERY detrimental to your client too:
1. Complaining about not getting paid by your own client. I don’t see this a lot but I had it come up just this week and it’s really what motivated this post. I have a fairly small $$ case regarding return of some personal property from a client’s former commercial tenant that has dragged on for a while. Well, in court this week the Plaintiff’s lawyer complains that his client has only paid him some $500 and is way behind on paying attorneys fees and the lawyer didn’t sound too confident in ever getting paid. It’s not that I don’t empathize with his plight because I have client payment problems too and it’s likely the most important topic discussed on SIC. But when you discuss it with opposing counsel I don’t think you’re acting in your client’s best interests. Because now I know this lawyer is hanging by a thread and if it’s in my client’s best interest to get him out of the case I wouldn’t hesitate to flood him with a little paperwork to push him out.
2. Personal attacks on an opposing client. Individually, I just find this utterly tacky and unprofessional but generally NOT AS hurtful to your client as #1 but it can hurt your client too (so why do it?). This comes up more than #1 through little snide comments by so-called professionals who can’t help over-personalizing a case. The worst I personally experienced was at Cook County’s primary parentage courthouse (32 W. Randolph, Chicago) a few years back where there was a visitation dispute and my client was the mother and the opposing female attorney just got in my client’s face attacking her about allegedly hurting the child’s relationship with her client (father). The only reason I can think of as to why this sort of behavior ever occurs is perhaps a lawyer trying to create the perception that she’s “aggressive” to her client. Of course the real result is damaging the relationship with the opposing counsel, hurting communication, and likely hurting a client’s case…not to mention likely causing the case to be a more expensive endeavor too.
Don’t forget about the meaning of the relationship: Fiduciary Duty. It means acting in your client’s best interest…not just doing what feels good.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
