I had an attorney arguing an issue with me. I was trying to be reasonable and explain that due to last minute notice of an issue, I needed to add a witness whom she could certainly talk to and maybe we could make the issue go away. But instead her response was that she would object to the witness and that she understood my response, but you know “we have to do the dance.”
Well, I beg to differ. In family law, where we are dealing with, not only our client’s lives but the lives of their children, there should be no “dance”. There should be an open exchange of information, a cooperation by both sides to ensure the Court gets all the necessary information, to make an informed decision and that’s it. This haggling and making things difficult and “litigating” in family law is unnecessary and frankly more harmful than helpful.
Now certainly, I understand making arguments and presenting evidence to the Court in the light most favorable to your client, this is what should happen and what needs to happen because then the Court has enough evidence from both sides to make an informed and fair decision. But arguing for argument sake makes things more difficult than they need to be, and running up attorney fees is not how a good family law attorney should operate.
Part of the attorney’s job is to assess the case before and during the process and give the client a well-informed opinion of how things may go. If the attorney does this, does not promise the client something they cannot deliver, and works the case from the beginning there is frankly no need for “dancing”.
I had another case where I took over late in the case and had to finish up getting the case ready for hearing and present the evidence to the Court. It became clear, very quickly, that the other attorney had been attempting to “bully” my client and previous counsel to get a good deal for his client. The result however, would have been screwing my client. After the court hearing, the Judge agreed with my position 98% (which hardly ever happens).
I can only guess what got us to the point of a fully contested hearing, but my gut tells me that the attorney had made some promises to his client that he shouldn’t have, and because he had done this, the client was unwilling to settle when a good offer was made and the end result cost her a lot of money.
Bottom line is that if your attorney is doing their job, they are working the case, keeping you informed, and giving you realistic potential outcomes, even if those outcomes are not fully in your favor, and both attorneys are working together to ensure all necessary evidence is available to the judge, there should be no dancing.
Well, I beg to differ. In family law, where we are dealing with, not only our client’s lives but the lives of their children, there should be no “dance”. There should be an open exchange of information, a cooperation by both sides to ensure the Court gets all the necessary information, to make an informed decision and that’s it. This haggling and making things difficult and “litigating” in family law is unnecessary and frankly more harmful than helpful.
Now certainly, I understand making arguments and presenting evidence to the Court in the light most favorable to your client, this is what should happen and what needs to happen because then the Court has enough evidence from both sides to make an informed and fair decision. But arguing for argument sake makes things more difficult than they need to be, and running up attorney fees is not how a good family law attorney should operate.
Part of the attorney’s job is to assess the case before and during the process and give the client a well-informed opinion of how things may go. If the attorney does this, does not promise the client something they cannot deliver, and works the case from the beginning there is frankly no need for “dancing”.
I had another case where I took over late in the case and had to finish up getting the case ready for hearing and present the evidence to the Court. It became clear, very quickly, that the other attorney had been attempting to “bully” my client and previous counsel to get a good deal for his client. The result however, would have been screwing my client. After the court hearing, the Judge agreed with my position 98% (which hardly ever happens).
I can only guess what got us to the point of a fully contested hearing, but my gut tells me that the attorney had made some promises to his client that he shouldn’t have, and because he had done this, the client was unwilling to settle when a good offer was made and the end result cost her a lot of money.
Bottom line is that if your attorney is doing their job, they are working the case, keeping you informed, and giving you realistic potential outcomes, even if those outcomes are not fully in your favor, and both attorneys are working together to ensure all necessary evidence is available to the judge, there should be no dancing.
RSS Feed
