Solo In Chicago…Grow Your Practice!

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

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.

We have a pending pleading asking that an opposing client be held in contempt of court for failure to follow a court’s order. At the first court date opposing client appears without a lawyer. I was able to speak with the client about the issue and he actually had some documentation showing that he likely was in compliance with the court’s orders and the issue just an inability of this guy and my client to communicate. Fine, the issue is likely off the table and we move on to the other areas of real disagreement. Always nice to get even a portion of the case settled, right?

Not!

I get a Motion to Quash Service regarding the contempt portion of the case from his new lawyer. I don’t want to talk specifically about the procedure because the pleading we got was also laughable in its wrongness. But overlooking that for a moment, if a client is actually in compliance with a court’s order and this chunk of the case is resolved by literally showing me one piece of paper, why ya filing anything?

And then there was the lawyer recently who wouldn’t even have a telephone conversation with me because she dislikes my client…

We’re all professionals here, we are professionals, we are professionals…what does that mean again?

What I’ve been reading of late…

Big firms cut back on law school recruiting. Yada, yada, yada.  Some examples from the article seemed to be 50%-60% cuts in summer associate positions and on-campus fall interviews. Well, you’re at the right place, Solo in Chicago.

Was it worth it? With debt of up to $250k, some law grads are dubious. Some? I don’t think it’s only a DEBT issue. This is my story which I bet is common. I decided to attend law school without giving that decision nearly enough thought…it was sort of an after-thought to generally boost my career prospects and to temporarily avoid permanent career decisions. I had no specific goal to work at a big firm or necessarily to work directly as a lawyer in private practice at all. Now I’m out and not particularly enamored with the “practice of law,” thinking of things to do that I would enjoy more, and I’m got this $40,000 weight around my neck.

Blogging Assistant PD Accused of Revealing Secrets of Little-Disguised Clients. Yeah, a little more anonymity and avoiding calling specific judges A-holes might best be avoided.

I heard that accusation made recently by a lawyer to an opposing counsel in court. And to be honest I don’t often step onto the civility soapbox because that’s not an agenda I care too much about. My philosophy is rooted in serving our clients’ best interests which frankly is usually served by being civil.

Yet I did find the above statement rather galling as it was made directly to a judge in open court. In Cook County these days you can get something file-stamped at the no fee drop boxes w/o really filing something and perhaps avoid paying a fee. But the issue here is that the fee issue is a Circuit Clerk problem and not a substantive issue in the legal matter and thus not of the lawyer’s concern.

What does the accusing attorney here gain by such a reckless comment?