THE LAWYER WHO KNEW TOO MUCH

TO WIT: THE LAWYER WHO KNEW TOO MUCH

I had recently returned from our annu­al family vacation, the time when my kiddies, albeit grown and with kid­dies of their own. and I congregate by the Gulf of Mexico to enjoy some essential but all too rare time together. It is my most favorite time. a chance for me to enjoy the people dearest to me, play some golf, escape the winter and catch up on my eating.

So when I returned to work rested, tanned, stuffed. I was at peace with the world. wholly unprepared for the first professional activity awaiting me. It was lunch with a colleague. a lunch arranged for the ,ole and exclusive purpose of dis­cussing a case.

He had called right before I went on vacation. Seems he was assigned the defense of a fairly simple auto accident case by the insurance company and he wanted to talk about it. I was pleased to hear from him. We hadn't had a case together in quite a while. and I knew that with him on the case I could count on a professional and therefore pleasurable experience.

"How are you, pal.” I said as I sat clown in the booth.

“Seventeen thousand, four hundred fifty-five dollars and eighteen cents,” he

replied.

“What?" I countered.

"That's what your case 1is worth: that’s what I'm offering you."

“It’s nice to see you too, Bill. How are Susan and the kids?”

"Take it or leave it,” he replied.

He then lapsed into a kind of aphasic state, staring vacantly into space. It's the same look I see from every insurance defense counsel every time plaintiffs begin to sob on the witness stand as they recall the pain of their dismemberment.

As I was contemplating my next step. the waiter brought lunch. “There’s something wrong with my tuna surprise.”I told the waiter. “It doesn't have any tuna in it.”

"That's the surprise." he said.

Though I attempted to continue to discuss the case. my colleague made no further verbal responses. Instead. he kept holding up a changing array of fingers. It took me the rest of the meal to figure out he was merely repeating his offer by ges­turing in Roman numerals. I had a response, but fearing he would mistake it for my willingness to settle the case for one dollar. I let the moment pass.

After lunch. I sat in my office. per­plexed. Bill had been one of the best liti­gators in town. tough. smart. mean as a Rottweiler - you know. a good lawyer. A quick call to one of his partners revealed that he had been behaving like this for some time.

“Why should a case take three or four years to resolve,” he had said to the other members of his firm, ”when lawyers who know what they're doing can evaluate any case in five minutes?" With that, he announced he was feel up with the slow crawl of the law and intend­ed to handle all his cases expeditiously. with logic, fair play and intellect. His partners were understandably terrified, but did nothing.

My duty was clear. I had an obliga­tion to report this bizzare behavior to the powers that be, and I started with our bar president.

"Yeah. I heard Bill was acting weird,” he told me over the phone.

"Have you done anything about it?" I asked him.

“No, but I will,” he said.

"This could be serious,” I replied. "What are you waiting for?”

He has three of my cases."

Not content with that response I called the local chair of the Lawyer, Concerned for Lawyers Committee.

"No. I hadn’t heard that Bill was having any problems, he responded. "but

I'll look into it soon."

”Why not now?” I asked.

"My cape isn't back from the clean­ers.”

But over the next several days, I began to think differently. Maybe Bill was right. The liability in the case was pretty clear, the injuries pretty common and his offer pretty much what I had fig­ured the case was worth. True, his approach was somewhat idiosyncratic, but I had to admit there was a certain logic to it. Besides, I figured my client would be thrilled to get his case resolved so quickly.

I’m not thrilled,” my client said when I informed him of the offer. “If that's his first offer, he’ll come up.”

"I don't think you understand the concept here." I reminded him. “He's made an eminently fair offer. and you can get your money now."

“Yeah, it's fair. and it's what you told me the case was worth, but I want more money." he said. refusing to settle.

Not five minute, later I received a call from the LCL chair. advising that he had interviewed Bill and found him to be logical, rational and fair. "I told him that with some rehab. There’s no reason he can't be a darn successful lawyer again.”

I guess the lesson here is that Bill’s concept just has no place in the practice of law. This is, after all. an adversarial system, fueled by people's psyches, passions, foibles and fears. If clients were capable of managing those aspects, of their personalities with logic, reason and fair play, what the hell would they need us for?

Last week Bill returned from rehab and I called him. "Bill." I said. “l've been thinking about your offer, and I think it’s fair. Still want to settle?”

"What." he said. "are you nuts?”

I was glad he was feeling better. OK, sure, the case will now take three years to complete, it will cost lots more money, my client will have to wait for his recovery and in all likelihood he'll end up with less. But let’s remember that the system still works as it was designed to, and in the final analysis isn’t that really all that matters?

© 2004 S. Sponte, Esq.

RAGING LAMB

LAW AT FIRST BITE