| Many people hold the unfortunate belief that when | | | | that more qualified attorneys would have potentially |
| they become involved in a lawsuit – including | | | | "won" $300,000, is that considered a "win?" The |
| divorce - they need to find a lawyer who is a "fighter," | | | | attorney did "win"- insofar as the opposing side |
| or "pit bull" (i.e., like the dog bred specifically to fight | | | | ultimately lost the case. However, wasn't a more |
| other dogs). Since legal disputes are adversarial by | | | | appropriate resolution lost? Then again, what if an |
| nature, the logic seems to be that an aggressive | | | | aggressive attorney causes both sides to incur legal |
| attorney will more successfully advance one's | | | | fees in the sum of $30,000, and yet ultimately "wins" |
| interests in court. By logical extension, a lawyer who | | | | only $5,000 for his/her client. Should that be considered |
| is not ruthlessly aggressive would be a suboptimal | | | | a "win?" And, if so, for whom? |
| choice. | | | | From my perspective, neither of these situations can |
| However, I would like to point out that strong, proactive, | | | | be considered to be a true victory for the client. While |
| and even aggressive representation does not | | | | ruthless and combative attorneys, and other such |
| necessarily equate with the "pit bull model." Attorneys | | | | people, would argue that a "win" is a "win," this point of |
| classified as pit bulls often tend to be belligerent, | | | | view assumes that the only thing that really matters is |
| argumentative, and eager to fight. What the public | | | | that the other side is defeated. Unless I am missing |
| does not realize is that highly contentious individuals | | | | something, the true "winner" in such situations is the |
| (attorneys included) usually place self-interest above all | | | | attorney. While some may argue that the client "won" |
| else. It should be obvious that always looking for more | | | | his or her debate as a matter of principle, and that the |
| points to fight over, and even taking unreasonable | | | | toll it may take on both sides is irrelevant, I contend that |
| positions on behalf of their clients, generates | | | | the cost (both financial and emotional) of fighting with |
| significantly more money in fees for the lawyer who | | | | this notion as a guiding force is often just not worth it. If |
| charges on an hourly basis. Moreover, such attorneys | | | | clients realized the extreme emotional and financial toll |
| tend to derivea great deal of pleasure from the fight in | | | | in advance of pursuing such principles, many would not |
| and of itself. In fact, many attorneys enter the field | | | | do so. This is especially true if the vindictive emotions |
| precisely because they enjoy argumentative | | | | that fuel such legal wrangling could otherwise be |
| confrontation, and tend to be disagreeable and difficult | | | | diffused through the use of psychologists and other |
| people in general. | | | | such mental health care professionals. |
| These attorneys thus tend to delay the resolution of a | | | | I have noted that disagreeable, contentious clients tend |
| case, file motions that make no sense from a cost | | | | to seek out similarly oriented attorneys. Interestingly |
| benefit analysis, and often cause the other side to | | | | enough, I've seen that such individuals tend to relate |
| need to file motions, or incur significant legal fees and | | | | well with each other-at least at first. Meanwhile, a client |
| costs because their client is refusing to disclose | | | | who tends to be more cooperative might retain an |
| required information and/or is hiding marital assets. (In | | | | attorney who is more antagonistic toward others and |
| my many years in the field, I have noticed that difficult | | | | vice versa, but such relationships do not tend to last. |
| and combative clients tend to retain difficult, combative | | | | Ultimately, the difficult client and difficult attorney will not |
| counsel, while reasonable and cooperative clients | | | | be able to treat each other any differently than they |
| usually retain more reasonable representation.) | | | | treat anyone else. Furthermore, the more reasonable |
| "Pit bull attorneys" are not concerned with resolving a | | | | client very often parts way with his or her overly |
| case in a fair and equitable manner, despite the fact | | | | aggressive attorney before long. These sorts of |
| that the family law court is considered a court of | | | | mismatching are why clients might go through several |
| equity, or fairness. Instead, these attorneys take | | | | different attorneys in course of a single particular legal |
| advantage of the flaws and imperfections in the legal | | | | proceeding. |
| system to make the case for the other side so costly | | | | I have previously written about the supreme |
| that they either cannot or will not continue to fight for | | | | importance of trust, mutual respect, and good |
| that to which they are otherwise legally entitled. Such | | | | communication between a client and his or her |
| attorneys are focused on "winning," no matter what | | | | attorney in order to have both a successful working |
| the cost, irrespective of right and wrong, and in total | | | | relationship, and a positive outcome in legal |
| disregard of equity. | | | | proceedings. Here again, I must point out that "pit bull |
| In truth, the very concept of "winning" in court is | | | | attorneys" and their clients can rarely, if ever, maintain |
| somewhat subject to interpretation. For example, if a | | | | these crucial aspects of the relationship. |
| particular attorney "wins" a client $30,000 in a case | | | | © 2009 Mark B. Baer, Esq. |