It is very difficult to know when you are getting a good lawyer. It may even be difficult to know after the fact when the lawyer has been good for you. A lawyer should be able and anxious:

1. To understand your problem
2. To propose solutions
3. To tell you about all of your reasonable options, even the ones that don’t involve using much of the lawyer’s services, and the benefits and detriments of each
4. To let you decide how to use that information

Those are my goals.

I’ve worked with lawyers from other firms during the entire time I’ve been in private practice. In general, getting different perspectives is a positive thing. It provides a reality check. For example, one of the factors that drives up expense in litigation is the tendency to staff litigation based on our fears. If something is a risk, howsoever slight, we devote real time, at real expense, to investigating it in order to be able to warn clients. Warning clients is good. But real time and real expense devoted to very, very slight risks may do more to help the lawyer sleep at night than it does to help the client sleep at night. It is a huge benefit to have a person from the outside, with experience, help determine the issues that matter and keep the case directed towards the client’s end. My responsibility is to make sure you get value for your legal services.

Dispute resolution is an art, informed by science. The best problem is the one you manage to avoid. The second best is the one you face efficiently and effectively. It is not possible for anyone to predict every dispute, but it is possible to avoid many of them and manage those that occur. Often people make the mistake of waiting until the case is mired in expensive litigation to try to remonstrate about attorney bills. There is something to be said for remonstrating about attorney bills. But in the grant scheme of things, it is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Heading off disputes earlier is the secret to seriously reducing dispute resolution expenses.

Dispute resolution is especially expensive because people often do not know what they are buying. I like to think I bring an unusual mix of experience that works very well for clients, but makes for lousy elevator speech. Not only have I litigated for over 35 years, I have seen dispute resolution from many perspectives. I worked in both the Government and in private practice. I have represented both plaintiffs and defendants. I have litigated and arbitrated in federal or state courts of over 40 states. I have represented insurance companies in a number of their larger more complex problems. As a result, I have seen how a large number of our country’s most prestigious law firms actually handle cases and how much the quality and efficiency of what they do differs from lawyer to lawyer and case to case. Superimpose on that a background in alternative dispute resolute with an emphasis on understanding the breadth of alternatives out there and how they may be used.

Let’s talk about the types of problems you face and develop a plan. This could involve, for example, an audit of its contracts to review how dispute resolution works; an analysis of its tort liability to help determine how best to prepare for it; a review of options for more efficient resolution of disputes; or a review of ongoing litigation to suggest exit strategies and approaches to handling.