The Matlock Blog

I'm just not that in to you

There seems to be a perception that clients (or perhaps more appropriately, potential clients) possess all of the bargaining power when choosing an attorney.  I think this is based on the idea that the client needs an attorney and the attorney needs clients, and sense the attorney can't go get clients, he needs the clients that come to him.  Personally, that's crap.

Make no mistake.  I want clients.  I like clients.  Practically speaking, I need clients to keep the doors open.  But that doesn't mean I agree to represent everyone that walks through the front door.  Unfortunately, there are too many attorneys that do just that.  And that leads to problems.

I have worked in firms where the primary goal was "signing up clients."  There was no regard for whether the firm was best-suited, or even well-suited, to represent the particular client.  Aside from the basic practice area differentiation (this is a family law case, and all I do is criminal defense, for example), it seems little consideration is paid to whether the attorney and client can work well together, if at all.

Lawyers should be choosier, if that's a word.  This is not so much about marketing or peace of mind or quality of life, as it is quality of representation.  Of course this presupposes the attorney tries to provide the best representation he can, rather than make money.  If the attorney is only concerned about making money, he will never turn down a client.  He will outbid, make promises and do everything else he can to get that potential client to hire him.  

However, for the attorney that truly cares about providing the best representation possible, sometimes you have to turn clients away.  It's hard.  It's extremely difficult to tell someone you're not able or willing to represent them when they are willing to throw a lot of money at you.  But they say money can't buy happiness, and sometimes certain clients don't make you happy at all.

The single most important attribute for a successful attorney-client relationship is trust.  It's not skill, resources, or knowledge.  It's trust.  And it goes both ways.  Not only must the client trust what the attorney is telling her, but the attorney must trust the client.  Anything else will cause problems.  How many problems and to what extent vary, but if there is no trust, there will rarely be much success.  Or happiness.  

Since I opened my own office, I decided I would only take the cases that I thought I was well-suited to defend.  As a general rule, there is no "type" of criminal case I won't handle.  However, there have been a number of individual potential clients that I have refused to represent.  

First, I have no problem with attorneys that refuse to defend certain "types" of criminal cases.  I know some that refuse to handle child sexual assault cases or capital murder cases or injury to the elderly cases.  It seems obvious to me that the reason is the attorney knows they wouldn't be able to effectively represent the person, and attempting to would hurt the client.  I actually think that's admirable.

Personally, I have not run across the type of factual scenario in a case that I would be unwilling to defend.  But, as some like to point out, I don't have the life experience others have.  

But why don't attorneys use the same selection process when it comes to individual clients?  I see the results all the time.  An attorney complaining about their client because of whatever reason.  Obviously there are circumstances to which I am unaware, but there is an easy way to avoid the headaches.

There have been a number of potential clients whom I have refused to represent, for whatever reason.  Sometimes it was because I could tell mom/ dad/ husband/ girlfriend was really calling the shots.  Sometimes it was because the client had completely unrealistic expectations.  Sometimes, quite frankly, it was because I didn't think I could trust them.  

If I can't trust my client, how can I effectively represent them?  This is not the age old question of how can I defend someone that told me they did it.  This has nothing to do with trusting whether the person is innocent.  If I only defended factually innocent people, I probably wouldn't have many clients. 

Instead this type of trust deals with me knowing that if my client tells me she will do something, that I know it will be done.  When there is no trust, there can be no success.  I firmly believe this.

Yet day in and day out, attorneys agree to represent clients they don't trust.  If attorneys paid more attention to whether there could be a successful attorney-client relationship that is built on trust, there would be fewer problems.  

So, if you come to see me, don't assume I will want to represent you.  Sometimes I don't trust a word some potential clients tell me.  Sometimes, I'm just not that in to you.

But what the hell do I know?  

Anxiety is the difference between "now" and "then"

Strange things happen when you study psychology in college and then go on to become a trial lawyer.  You start trying to figure out the psychology of your jury.  You start evaluating your case from the psychological perspective of your jury.  And of course, you keep reading psychology books, only now they deal with jurors and trials.

One such book is Practical Jury Dynamics 2 by Dr. SunWolf.  The good doctor has written a pretty good book that deals with, oddly enough, the practical side of the the juror's psychology.  

A great section is what is referred to as Evidence-Anxiety for Jurors.  Dr. SunWolf created a simple list of 10 sources of Evidence-Anxiety for Jurors.  This is useful when preparing your trial so as to present your evidence in a way the jury can understand effectively.

1.  They do not understand the information.

2.  They suspect they are alone in not understanding the information.

3.  Information is presented too quickly.

4.  Information is presented through only one communication channel. 

5.  The amount of information is overwhelming.

6.  Multiple sources of different information are being presented simultaneously.

7.  There is too little information about the information.

8.  They do not know whether further information about the information will be presented.

9.  The information is contradictory to old information they had before hearing the new information.

10.  The do not know whether they will need the information.

When presenting our case to a jury, all too often we have lived with the case for months, maybe years.  When that happens, we take for granted the information of the case.  It becomes routine for us.  Although we might have been overwhelmed initially by the medical evidence of the wounds to the alleged victim, or the shear volume of documents in our fraud case, or whatever, we figured it out.  But we did so likely over months of preparation.

The jury will be listening to the evidence for the first time.  The amount of information can be overwhelming to them as well.  In addition, they are confronted with the reality that they will not be able to take the file home and reread it like we did.  This is where evidence-anxiety can come to play.

By remembering that jurors are only seeing snapshots of everything we have spent months with, as well as the corresponding fear and anxiety that goes with learning new things, we can present better cases to juries, and as a result, obtain better results.

But what the hell do I know?