We’re all in the business of retaining clients but there are times when a person is best left a non-client…better for both the lawyer and non-client. Because I strongly believe that there are situations when lawyers are unnecessary and often destructive. And taking on clients where you obtain a poor result and run up a client’s fees unnecessarily surely isn’t the sort of reputation building you need to really “Grow Your Practice.”
I’m constantly amazed and appalled in many of my domestic relations referral program appointed cases where I’m defending clients against indirect civil contempt. These cases are frequently post-judgment matters in divorce. More often than not an upfront review of the case file and discussions with my “new” client uncovers not only high levels of lawyer dissatisfaction but also tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fee judgments against these former clients. In other words not the sort of glowing client testimonials likely to bring those referrals and repeat business knocking on your door.
So when does a person REALLY need a lawyer?
It depends on the person and the definition of “need.” I suppose the continuum ranges from lawyer as replacement 3rd-party actor doing something a client could do herself but simply chooses not to (like using a landscaping service) to the most specialized of legal work where the intimate knowledge and experience of a lawyer is critical (think capital murder defense). And there’s nothing wrong with serving at either of those extremes…it’s honorable work to be your client’s trusted adviser on a variety of life’s complications. But oftentimes I think the honest assessment to a client that he should handle something himself bolsters your reputation (like parents arguing about visitation schedules or knowing that there’s not a legal solution to the potential client’s problem).
Here’s a guide I’ve developed (and heard many of these points made by judges) to answer the question, Does This Person REALLY Need a Lawyer, within the divorce field…maybe you can modify my list to polish your client selection discernment within your niche.
1. No property and no children and short-term marriage=don’t REALLY need a lawyer. Unless a party simply wants to hire you like the landscaper, to avoid the hassle of a task and would prefer just paying someone to do this for them, no property/no children often should equal no lawyer.
2. Property and/or children=REALLY Need a Lawyer. Simply way too many ways to blow money here like not knowing how to calculate “Net Income” for child support purposes if no one knows what they’re doing.
3. One party has a lawyer=the other party REALLY Needs a Lawyer. This is a recent add-on category for me that I think crosses the spectrum outside of my little family law world because if one party has a lawyer the pro se party is looking at potentially getting screwed BIG-TIME. I have several examples of this happening but a recent scenario that crossed my desk is the best…a couple both likely in their mid-50s divorces with several children but all the children are adults and beyond college age. The party with the lawyer talks the pro se litigant into having a $20,000ish judgment entered against the pro se litigant for a child support arrearage for a time period some 5-7 years prior when the kids lived with her. Judgment was to be paid out in installments. So, this guy is stuck with a $20k judgment because he didn’t have a lawyer…no way something like that happens with simply the most minimal trained opposing counsel.
Does this person REALLY need a lawyer? It’s likely one of the first issues you should be discussing at new client consultations. I think it’s an effective way to sort of play on the “scarcity principal”…I don’t take every little case that walks in the door. An important part of good client counseling.
