TO WIT: OH BROTHER, WHY ART THOU?
“So, you'll do it my way." the client insisted as he stared across the desk at me, teeth clenched, jaw rigid, eyes unflinchingly affixed to a point somewhere near the tip of my nose.
I sat quietly for a moment or two. nor knowing exactly how to respond. Usually
this is the point at which I rise from my chair and cordially thank clients with as much sincerity as I can possibly feign for according me the privilege of representing them thus far. Usually this is when I wish them the best of luck with whomever they hire next, and usually this is when I
gently but firmly take them arm in arm and walk them to the door, perambulating at a pace just fast enough to let them know they are getting the old heave-ho. This time, though, with this client, there was no "usually" to it .
As a general rule. I fire any client who rejects my advice and insists instead that
I proceed in away I cannot countenance. It’s a rule I developed back in my antediluvian days when I still did family law. Let a divorce client call the shots and next thing you know shots is what they're gonna want.
But this was not just a client. he was a lawyer as well, and a distinguished one to boot. He had retained me to represent him in a complex matter. and I had been very flattered. What better accolade is there in this profession than being hired by one of our own?
I had already spent years working on his case. had tried it to a jury — with an
admittedly unsatisfying result — and had just filed an appeal that I thought I could
win. I already had a great deal of pride, passion and self-esteem tied up in this case. So rather than hustle him out the door over his demands. I tried to resolve the contretemps with rational discussion.
"Come on", I said, "your'e too personally involved in this. You wouldn't be your own doctor, now would you?" I knew that argument was going nowhere when he proceeded to show me al the fillings he had put in his own teeth.
Next I tried the intellectual approach. "We both know the law. and I think we
can both agree that my way is based on a careful analysis of applicable precedent." Although his response was both creative and innovative, I told him I could not advance the argument that his case could be distinguished from al the adverse precedential decisions because those "had all been decided by loonies."
When we could not agree, we both decided he should seek other counsel.
It really wasn’t' what I wanted. Although his name was in the caption, the case was really mine. It was born from, nurtured by and grew to casehood fostered by my skill, my sweat and my ego, and I had very much wanted to see it through to a successful conclusion.
Oh, but isn't that the difficulty; the risk. of representing colleagues? They
might not always know enough to avoid getting into trouble, but they certainly know more than most about getting out of it. Egos being what they are. they'll want to be heard, and their knowledge and experience, much to my eternal chagrin, has to count for something.
now doesn't it?
Had I had any inkling that my respectful, analytical approach to resolving the conflict would come to naught, I would have handled things differently. I would long ago have gently but firmly taken him arm in arm and perambulated him rapidly to the door for the old heave-ho. I might have even flung an epithet for good measure.
Oh. I know; that would not have been very collegial. Then again, think of it like
this: Anyone who would treat his lawyer with such disdain deserves nothing less.
©2010 S. Sponte, Esq.