by Traverse Legal, reviewed by Enrico Schaefer - November 7, 2005 - 'The Greatest' Philosophy
As I redefine myself and my practice, I am forced to think about what types of cases I will be involved in and what kind of problems I will attempt to solve. In thinking back over these last months, I see that I have been far more cautious with my clients on the issue of litigation. I could think of dozens of conversations with people who wanted to sue. After discussing the matter with them, providing them information about the costs of litigation, the uncertainty, the length of time, the prospect of appeal and the difficulties of being a plaintiff in any courtroom, virtually all of those people have seen the light and redefined their legal goals. At my hourly billing firm, a litigation client was like gold. The incentive was to encourage litigation (or at the very least never to stand in the way of it) and secure that initial retainer.
I see the number of litigation cases I am handling steadily decline, especially for those non-contingency fee cases. I awoke this morning thinking "I need a few more litigation cases." I don’t know why I thought this. I view myself as a litigation attorney with unique talents in a courtroom. I know there are big litigation cases out there which I would love to handle. But, I also realize there are very few litigation cases that really make sense. The businesses that can afford litigation have better things to do. Litigation causes them to lose focus on their core business, drains resources, can be a significant distraction and, of course, cost tens of thousands of dollars if not more. My approach now is litigation as a last resort, not as a first option.
So as I take a look at my new law firm case profile, I see myself helping people stay out of court. In a way, I have become far more solution oriented. I am far more prone to provoke a fight with the other side. I rarely send "threat" letters anymore. Now my letters are an invitation to sit down face to face and take a hard look at the matter from both prospectives. I find my clients are far more satisfied with the end result than if we were meandering through the litigation process.
So maybe I don’t need more litigation. Maybe my business model is more focused on helping lots of people avoid litigation, rather than ramming a few through the litigation process. Maybe my model is about developing long term relationships with my clients based on the solutions I provide, rather than sucking my clients dry of resources, money and time in the rough and tumble courtroom world. Perhaps my model is spending the time educating clients about what it really means to be a litigant in court, breaking down the naive view of justice which many clients have when they step in my office and say "I want to sue."
As a founding partner of Traverse Legal, PLC, he has more than thirty years of experience as an attorney for both established companies and emerging start-ups. His extensive experience includes navigating technology law matters and complex litigation throughout the United States.
This page has been written, edited, and reviewed by a team of legal writers following our comprehensive editorial guidelines. This page was approved by attorney Enrico Schaefer, who has more than 20 years of legal experience as a practicing Business, IP, and Technology Law litigation attorney.