Yes. Look, I don t even do litigation very much, I do to real estate transactions. Have you any idea how much time I spend on a transaction both before and after close doing things for my clients that they never think about and don t realize I m doing? I m not complaining about that, I get paid, and part of the reason I get paid is so they don t have to think about the details and don t need to know all the stuff I know. I think litigation would be even more that way. If I hired a litigator and he asked me quot;Hey, you think I should subpoena this person?quot; I d say quot;If you re asking me that, just what the hell am I paying YOU to do?quot;
Lawyers can take steps to further their client s case without discussing specifics first. On the other hand, if the client has given instructions that a certain person is NOT to be subpoenaed, the attorney shouldn t do it. (That could result in the lawyer withdrawing from the case, if the client is preventing the attorney from doing the job.)
Yep. There is an implicit agreement that the lawyer will use the necessary means to win for their client. However, there is also a duty to communication with their client.
I believe so.
0 comments:
Post a Comment