Every once in a while I get to chat with either a client of my own or some random stranger that feels the need to discuss his/ her case with me and end up hearing that they have appointed an attorney from out-of-town. If you live here in Mpumalanga you would usually hear about an attorney from Gauteng being appointed by a litigant here in your own area.
Now- I do admit that other reasons for this arrangement exist in some cases, but the one reason that I want to discuss is the following:
"Attorneys here in Nelspruit are all in each other's pockets and they arrange among themselves how matters are to be settled."
Well... hearing this does not sound so bad to me at first, but when clients start elaborating on what their problem with a situation like this, it becomes clear that some clients feel that we conspire against their best interests.
Apparently- not enough has been done to keep the public informed of how the different legal processes work and a statement of the above is usually the result of imagination filling the blanks to make up for what the clients do not see happening in their cases.
While I do everything in my power to ensure that clients' matters are handled in a transparent manner I still think it is necessary to bring the following to clients' attention:
1. We are colleagues, but not necessarily friends:
Believe me- with the amount of time that legal work takes out of your day there is not enough time to make friends. Sure- we have Attorneys' Association meetings once every quarter or so, but not all attorneys in my area show up for them.
And while we do maintain a fair level of collegiality amongst one another experience has taught us that no matter how nice any colleague may be at the meeting- his client comes first to him or her and you really have to be extra careful when litigating against any of them.
While we are normally very vocal about our victories in court there is a fair amount of defeats that we have also suffered against the very same colleagues with whom we are so civil.
As a practitioner whose been in this profession for a much shorter time than a number of my colleagues here in Mbombela I can also confirm that about only one out of twenty settlement proposals made by myself ever get accepted off the bat. Most of the cases I handle end up being litigious simply because the other side is unwilling to even consider what I have to say.
So- if you think that we meet in a bar and discuss who gets to win which case, you are seriously mistaken...
2. If matters really get settled out of court that easily it would actually be better for clients
While you might think it is a good sign to see attorneys battling it out at court the fact remains that litigation is risky and expensive. Sure- accepting a settlement may mean that you get less than what you actually want, but it puts an end to the stress and running up of legal costs right there and then.
I actually represent on a regular basis clients whose opponents try to litigate them out of pocket. Such opponents are never in a hurry to settle and think that they can bully you into accepting their terms just by dragging out the matter for as long as they can. The only solution is to structure bill payments according to the client's means and then do everything that is necessary to get a matter trial ready or otherwise ready to be finalised at court. In spite of all this it would still be much better if all this cost can be avoided by just settling out of court.
3. Litigation attorneys usually have a strong desire to win at all cost
Sure- they may deny it to your face, but I can't recall any litigious matter against any of my colleagues where I did not have to deal with some kind of clever strategy or cunning tactic to outwit me or my client. I guess that is just the way we are.
In any event- appointing an attorney from out of town is more expensive in the sense that it adds travelling costs and correspondent fees to your bill that would otherwise not have been there if had just supported one of the attorneys in your own town.
Now- I do admit that other reasons for this arrangement exist in some cases, but the one reason that I want to discuss is the following:
"Attorneys here in Nelspruit are all in each other's pockets and they arrange among themselves how matters are to be settled."
Well... hearing this does not sound so bad to me at first, but when clients start elaborating on what their problem with a situation like this, it becomes clear that some clients feel that we conspire against their best interests.
Apparently- not enough has been done to keep the public informed of how the different legal processes work and a statement of the above is usually the result of imagination filling the blanks to make up for what the clients do not see happening in their cases.
While I do everything in my power to ensure that clients' matters are handled in a transparent manner I still think it is necessary to bring the following to clients' attention:
1. We are colleagues, but not necessarily friends:
Believe me- with the amount of time that legal work takes out of your day there is not enough time to make friends. Sure- we have Attorneys' Association meetings once every quarter or so, but not all attorneys in my area show up for them.
And while we do maintain a fair level of collegiality amongst one another experience has taught us that no matter how nice any colleague may be at the meeting- his client comes first to him or her and you really have to be extra careful when litigating against any of them.
While we are normally very vocal about our victories in court there is a fair amount of defeats that we have also suffered against the very same colleagues with whom we are so civil.
As a practitioner whose been in this profession for a much shorter time than a number of my colleagues here in Mbombela I can also confirm that about only one out of twenty settlement proposals made by myself ever get accepted off the bat. Most of the cases I handle end up being litigious simply because the other side is unwilling to even consider what I have to say.
So- if you think that we meet in a bar and discuss who gets to win which case, you are seriously mistaken...
2. If matters really get settled out of court that easily it would actually be better for clients
While you might think it is a good sign to see attorneys battling it out at court the fact remains that litigation is risky and expensive. Sure- accepting a settlement may mean that you get less than what you actually want, but it puts an end to the stress and running up of legal costs right there and then.
I actually represent on a regular basis clients whose opponents try to litigate them out of pocket. Such opponents are never in a hurry to settle and think that they can bully you into accepting their terms just by dragging out the matter for as long as they can. The only solution is to structure bill payments according to the client's means and then do everything that is necessary to get a matter trial ready or otherwise ready to be finalised at court. In spite of all this it would still be much better if all this cost can be avoided by just settling out of court.
3. Litigation attorneys usually have a strong desire to win at all cost
Sure- they may deny it to your face, but I can't recall any litigious matter against any of my colleagues where I did not have to deal with some kind of clever strategy or cunning tactic to outwit me or my client. I guess that is just the way we are.
In any event- appointing an attorney from out of town is more expensive in the sense that it adds travelling costs and correspondent fees to your bill that would otherwise not have been there if had just supported one of the attorneys in your own town.
No comments:
Post a Comment