Last month we talked about how establishing goals for litigation “wins” requires taking emotion out of litigation, and clear communication between lawyer and client.  We also talked about the need to re-evaluate litigation goals as the facts and issues develop.  This month we’re going to discuss the hidden costs of litigation, and the benefits of early resolution.
Continue Reading

Last month I talked about how litigation “wins” don’t always require a jury finding in your favor.  This month we continue talking about reaching litigation “wins” through early communication and objectivity. If I got $100 for every time a client told me during an initial consultation that they wanted to extract a pound of flesh from the other side, I’d probably living the island life right now.  These clients aren’t individuals looking to sue some international conglomerate; most are entrepreneurs or business executives.  And I guarantee you that I am not alone.  Most lawyers would tell you they hear the same thing from clients during their initial consultation.  Sometimes clients continue that mantra for several months.  Some even go so far as to say something like, “I don’t care what it costs.  I want justice!”  I get it too.  When a client first contacts a lawyer about litigation, it’s because the client believes: (1) somebody did something that hurt the client (physically, emotionally or economically); or (2) somebody brought a bogus lawsuit against them. 
Continue Reading

Does a “win” in litigation require a final judgment in your favor?  Not necessarily.  Litigation “wins” are defined by the circumstances facing a party at the outset of litigation, and how those circumstances change as litigation progresses.  Over the next few months we will dive deeper into this topic, and talk about issues such as:

Continue Reading

Wanting to comply with the latest edict of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and give a recently released felon a break, Awft N. Cawssius ignored Pa Roll’s answer of “yes” to whether he had been convicted of a crime in the last five years and hired Pa to work as an armed security guard

Johnny Tightlips, a local mobster, is facing time behind bars for various racketeering offenses. During the trial, the New York Daily Planet reported that Tightlips was a “key lieutenant” of Jimmy “The Squid” Calamari, an organized crime figure, and that Tightlips planned to reduce his jail time by cooperating with prosecutors to testify against The

Sal Minella is president and registered agent of Mother Clucking Tasty Chicken, a large poultry processor in East Texas. One afternoon, while flying the coop for a much needed vacation to the Canary Islands, Sal is met by a process server who presents him with a lawsuit. Sal quickly skims the allegations of the lawsuit

Times were good in the coal business and Conspiring Coal’s cost benefit analysis revealed greater profits could be had if it could run Noharmin Mines out of business. A jury found that’s exactly what Conspiring Coal did and awarded Noharmin Mines $50 million in damages. Desperately needing to dig out of this deep hole, Dastardly