2 Types of Lawyers
I nearly lost my cool yesterday with someone. Thankfully, I managed to keep myself from ridiculing the other person because he did not agree with me. On the other hand, I was ridiculed and mocked indirectly for being a lawyer who could not do anything to sort out the problem that someone had got himself into. I had to keep cool because this person who ridiculed me is my classmate’s spouse. I was ridiculed even though he requested for some legal opinion (for free, of course). I was ridiculed at a point when I was having my dinner (he didn’t know I was having dinner when he called me for advice). For the sake of maintaining friendship and as a Christian witness, however, I have to overlook his ridicule. After a moment of quiet silence and asking God to give me peace.
The conversation came to a conclusion that there are generally 2 types of lawyers. On the one hand, you have the lawyers who have no qualms promising the clients that no problem cannot be overcome by litigating the matter to the hilt. Even if it is too remote a chance. Nevermind if the client has to spend too much legal fees and disbursements, not to mention countless manhours in meetings, obtaining information and documentation to support the claim / defence as well as attending hearings. Don’t care if it could result in days, if not months and years of stress and pressure over the anticipation of litigation and judgment. It does not matter even if at the end of the day, the client’s fruits of litigation does not commensurate with the monies and time spent or worst still, to lose the case altogether. As long as the client is willing to pay, the lawyer will take up the case. Legal rights take precedence.
Of course, there is nothing to prevent a litigant from taking up a frivolous case, especially when emotions are involved. Tit for tat and an eye for an eye. Gung-ho, some call it.
On the other hand, there are lawyers who will weigh the client’s interest as a whole and offer counselling or advice on how to resolve the issue at hand in a bigger picture. Whether the claim or defence is likely to succeed, whether the cost (fees and time cost) of litigation will outweight the amount in litigation. Whether it is in the best interest of the client to win a legal right but risk losing bigger things such as being unable to look beyond retribution and continually living with a life of hatred towards the other person.
As a litigation lawyer, I seldom see clients who are as gung-ho about their case towards the end of the case compared to when they see me for the first time with their problem. Most of them lose steam as time goes by (not to mention money towards fees) and they are not exactly looking forward to going to court only to see their case being postponed time and again due to factors beyond their control. When someone perceives that their right has been breached, the first thing they lose is not their right but their emotions. The court decides on whether the right has been breached. Not the litigant. Not the lawyer. At the end of the day, winning a battle with life’s ups and downs is more than just winning a case.
Which type of lawyer would you consult amongst the two above?
comments
You got something to say?
