Twin Cities Business Litigation Blog : Minneapolis Business Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : Gavin P. Craig Law Firm : St. Paul, Twin Cities, Minnesota MN

The always entertaining Maxwell Kennerly has a post describing the results in two recent cases.In one, the jury clearly thought that the defendant was lying. In the second, the overreaching demand of the lawyer probably cost the plaintiff a lot of money.

Lawyers are charged with the duty to diligently pursue the interest of their clients. One thing a lawyer should never do is allow a client to lie. This is harder than you might think, since some clients have a tendency to shade the truth from the lawyer. In fact, they almost always bend the truth. Usually the lawyer will be able to work with the client and determine what really happened.

Many years ago I had a case where the client had a very consistent and compelling story about a business deal gone bad. The facts were fairly straight forward - I thought. When the trial started the client, to my surprise, testified to a completely different story. After a year and a half of one story - supported by other evidence - he completely changed his story when testifying at trial. Had he not changed his story I would never have known that his original tale was less than truthful.

Clients need to understand that not everything they did, or said, or wrote, will help their case. This is almost universally the case in any business litigation. Every case has problems. The challenge is to use the weak points in every case to show that your client is telling the truth - and should be believed.

Another problem for the lawyer is what to do with the client that has unrealistic expectations. The Plaintiff client believes (or hopes) that they are entitled to damages that are completely unsupported by the evidence. Arguing for excessive damages can have a real negative impact on the judge or jury listening to the case. Greed does not pay! Especially when the judge or jury perceives that the demand is not reasonably related to the actions.

The problem is that once in a while a jury awards a party clearly excessive damages. The award then becomes well publicized. (i.e. the McDonald coffee case.) These rare cases can change the expectations of a client. I recently tried a case - representing the defendant - where the plaintiff's claims were very questionable. The Plaintiff's counsel told me he wanted to throw the dice and try the case. His facts were weak, but the chance of succeeding was driving the plaintiff to try a case that otherwise would have settled.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

 Norm Coleman is now declaring that he will appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court in his never-ending quest to retain his seat as Minnesota’s senator.  He lost – that much is clear.  The court has rejected his attorney’s arguments of some massive unfairness in the system: Minnesota has a very good election system that has worked well over the years.  Coleman has been arguing that it is somehow unfair that if one county accidentally allowed a vote by an ineligible voter, then not withstanding the law making these persons ineligible, all the counties must do the same.  That nutty argument, and his total lack of any creditable evidence to support many of his charges, makes his case a losing proposition. 

Kevin Duchschere from the Star Tribune has written a good piece about the Coleman election case.  Coleman is currently trying to convince the public that he is continuing this fight for some higher purpose.  In other words, it is the Principle that he is fighting for. 

Any attorney who has litigated a case has probably heard a client declare that it is not the money – it is the principle.  I think these are universally the worst clients.  When we tell a potential client that their case might be good – or not, but either way it is not economically a good decision, they don’t necessarily listen.  When that same client wants to bring the action anyway, (or defend instead of settling the matter) because it is the principle of the matter that counts most, this should be a real danger sign to the attorney.  These clients almost always eventually decide that it really is the money, and not the principle that matters most.

It is easy for Coleman to take this position because he is not paying for the legal fees.  If Coleman really believes that he is fighting for some high principle and he is right, (and I doubt both of these assertions) then he should be willing to fund the entire cost of the litigation.  If he is not prepared to do that, I don’t think his representations are creditable.  “Put your money where your mouth is.”

 It is always easy to fight on other people’s money. 

The same principle applies to litigation between emotional ex-business partners, or any other business litigation for that matter.  When the fight becomes over “principle,” it is usually time to suggest that the potential client find another lawyer.     

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks