I don't post about my job very often; that's by design. I also don't post about my relationship with my future wife very much either. Both for a lot of the same reasons. Probably the biggest is that it could be dangerous. I don't want to lose my job, or more importantly, my license to practice law. And I really, really don't want to lose Audra. So even though there are a lot of interesting and funny stories I could tell about these two very big parts of my life, I steer clear of those topics on this public forum. This is somewhat surprising given my lack of discipline when it comes to most things, at least my my standards.
I've found myself in a lot of complicated and difficult situations in my job. Situations where I can't trust, or don't believe, the people I have access to who are supposed to be the ones I can trust and believe. At those times I'm left totally to myself, where I have to make the call and I know that I'll have to live with it. For most young attorneys - at least I think this the way it works - they are insulated from a lot of front-line decisions by a more senior lead attorney who calls all the shots and bears the ultimate responsibility for anything that happens. Not so with me. For better or worse, I'm in a firm where the overhead numbers won't allow for that kind of insulation and security. Either that, or everyone's just lazy. So I've been on the front lines a lot in my young career. I'm a cherry who's only been in country a few days and sent to lead deadly missions in the bush.
It's no accident that I'm in this situation. In a way, I wanted it. I've never accepted the leadership (or guidance or advice) of others very well. My way is to throw myself in headlong and mostly get it right because of the tools I've got. The parts I get wrong are usually only scratches and even then I am pretty resourceful at field dressing wounds.
A couple of days ago I was in a firefight and I was severely outgunned. That's a bad feeling and hard for me to admit. Opposing counsel, there were two of them, each had twenty years in the practice on me. And one of them was a specialist in the area that the case revolved around. My clients had the most to lose and they had been painted as the bad guys from day one. To make matters worse, one of my clients, the most important one, had not shown up as he was supposed to. I had promised everyone that he'd be there and it put me in a very bad position.
This was a mediation, which to a lot of people, and even a lot of lawyers, is a benign proceeding. Not so, in my experience. A mediation is like the committee work of Congress. It's where the real shit gets done. It's where the how much gets decided, and that's what it's all about. Parties and lawyers alike are allowed to spew their bile and use their dirty tactics without the Rules and without a referee. If a trial is a boxing match, mediation is a street fight. Perhaps the worst part about it is the mediator, the neutral third. The party line is that mediation is a fantastic development in the world of litigation. It has proven very effective at settling cases, which, in theory, means that litigation costs for consumers of legal services should go down. It means that there is less pressure on a taxed court system. And it means that parties are allowed to control their own fates. What is lost, I think, is the forces at play that cause cases to settle at mediation are fear and intimidation; mostly on the part of the mediator himself. "Good" mediators are masters at subtle fear mongering and manipulation. When they are in a room with a party and the party's attorney what they mostly talk about is how bad the case is for them and why they are likely to lose and what will happen to them if they do. There is a euphamistic acronym for this: BATNA - Best Alternative To A Negotiated Agreement. Put in real terms: what's going to happen to you if you don't whip out the checkbook today? And, oh by the way - it's going to be real bad.
Experienced lawyers will sit back and allow the mediator to scare the hell out of their clients. That makes it more likely that their client will pay enough to settle the case, which is good for the lawyer because it means, at the very least, if they are overworked like most lawyers, that they'll be able to get one more file off their desk. And besides, by that point they've earned enough in fees on the case. It's also good because the lawyer gets to look like he's done a good job when the final number comes in lower than the really scary number that the mediator has been throwing around. Everyone wins, except for the client.
I can't play it that way. At least not now, and hopefully not ever. I spar with the mediator fiercely over why my client's case isn't as bad as they say and why the facts and the law of the case actually point to a much more favorable result. Some mediators have given me some strange looks like, "Boy, don't you know how this game is played?" I like to think that after we all leave and they break out the scotch that they laugh about me and quote from Platoon, "What we got here is a cru-sader!" Maybe so, misguided and hopeless as it is.
What really sucks is to learn, after you've gone to bat for them, that your client is a lying thief. It's one thing when they lie to the the other side, but when you find out (and you always do) that they've been withholding things from you, or worse, outright lying to your face, it's a real kick in the gut. No one wants to believe me when I tell them to tell me everything, even if they think it's bad. I guess no one believes that anyone is capable of representing someone who they think ill of. When I think of that I think of a speech my first-year torts professor gave to my class. He read a letter written by a Japanese prisoner of war during WWII who had been accused of heinous war crimes against American soldiers in the Pacific. The letter was written to the American soldier who was legally trained and appointed in the field to represent the Japanese soldier at the military trial. The letter was written to thank the American lawer and described how he had done his best to represent him and that even though he'd been found guilty and was sentenced to be executed, that he respected the effort and the impartial ability of the American lawyer to vigorously represent him despite the fact that the American knew that his buddies had been tortured and killed by this man, or others like him. I still get goosebumps when I think about that story.
Someone once told me that I was a person of high integrity. I don't know if it's true or not, but since then I've made integrity my ultimate fallback position. I've told clients many times when they've asked me to do something untoward that I just won't do it. And I hope I never do. I know every time I tell a client that I refuse to do something that I could lose the client, but secretly I hope that it builds respect in them for me, for their sake. I always get a kick out of the puzzled looks I get that say, "But you are a lawyer. I thought you were supposed to be a fucking scumbag." I haven't had a client leave yet.
Anyway, I've had a rough week and I suppose this little piece is just my therapeutic venting.
Thanks for readin'.
Recent Comments