In most cases, all the difficult opposing counsel wants to achieve is to distract you and the court. One way opposing lawyers distract their opponents by filing incessant motions to frustrate a matter. Some lawyers are easily distracted by allowing every issue raised by an opposing lawyer to become a dispute.
Full Answer
A difficult opposing counsel should be handled like a festering boil near your eyelids, lest they harm you and your case. Save yourself from stress and despair in your legal practice by learning how to deal and relate with difficult lawyers.
In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order.
Nothing upsets an opposing counsel more than a calm and collected lawyer. A relaxed lawyer who is not overwhelmed with emotion is less likely to make mistakes in his case. Don’t be distracted. In most cases, all the difficult opposing counsel wants to achieve is to distract you and the court.
I was verbally told that my complaint did not “rise to the level of” and that complaints against opposing lawyers and complaints filed before the litigation was finished would NOT be processed. Of course, if the litigation goes on forever, the time period in which you can file a complaint expires.
The well-known old saying often credited to Abraham Lincoln states that “He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”. This article will not comment on the advisability of representing yourself in litigation, but will instead discuss the ethical issues that arise when an attorney is either a pro se litigant (representing him or herself) ...
In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order.
In this situation, the attorney is not acting as both counsel and client, but is rather is only a client who has retained representation. PBA Opinion 2017-200 found that when an attorney is represented by counsel, Rule 4.2 does not apply, reasoning that Rule 4.2 only applies when an attorney is acting in the role of representing a client ...
However, an attorney who is a pro se litigant is also the attorney representing themselves, and it can be argued that pursuant to Model Rule 4.2, the attorney is ethically prohibited from speaking with an adverse party represented by counsel without “consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order.”.
Be Proactive. One great way to handle difficult opposing lawyers is to be proactive. If you are always reacting to what the opposing lawyer is throwing your way, you’ll regularly be playing catch up. To be proactive, lawyers must have a plan of action and anticipate the next move of the opposing counsel, just like in a chess game.
One way opposing lawyers distract their opponents by filing incessant motions to frustrate a matter. Some lawyers are easily distracted by allowing every issue raised by an opposing lawyer to become a dispute. While it is essential to react to some motions, learn to ignore harmless ones.
Calm lawyers are usually the most efficient because they do not allow their emotions to becloud their sense of reasoning. Nothing upsets an opposing counsel more than a calm and collected lawyer.
A difficult opposing counsel is every legal practitioner’s nightmare. Even judges dread the thought of presiding over matters involving a difficult lawyer. Their fears are understandable. Difficult lawyers seem to have a penchant for employing unethical tactics to win a case. According to some lawyers, dealing with a difficult opposing counsel is ...
To be proactive, lawyers must have a plan of action and anticipate the next move of the opposing counsel, just like in a chess game. By preempting the moves of the lawyer on the other side, you will avoid delays caused by your opponent’s delayed actions.
The reason many lawyers are uncivil and aggressive comes from the desire to please their clients. There is certainly a popular misconception by the public that lawyers who are difficult and aggressive are the ones who can bring in results.
Civility lies at the core of the legal profession. The legal profession expects every lawyer to act with the utmost courtesy both in and outside the court. There is always a temptation to throw civility out of the window and display aggressive behavior towards an opposing counsel. Big mistake!
The problem can arise whether the lawyer is called as a witness on behalf of the client or is called by the opposing party. Determining whether or not such a conflict exists is primarily the responsibility of the lawyer involved. If there is a conflict of interest, the lawyer must secure the client's informed consent, confirmed in writing.
A witness is required to testify on the basis of personal knowledge, while an advocate is expected to explain and comment on evidence given by others. It may not be clear whether a statement by an advocate-witness should be taken as proof or as an analysis of the proof.
[1] Combining the roles of advocate and witness can prejudice the tribunal and the opposing party and can also involve a conflict of interest between the lawyer and client.
[2] The tribunal has proper objection when the trier of fact may be confused or misled by a lawyer serving as both advocate and witness. The opposing party has proper objection where the combination of roles may prejudice that party's rights in the litigation. A witness is required to testify on the basis of personal knowledge, while an advocate is expected to explain and comment on evidence given by others. It may not be clear whether a statement by an advocate-witness should be taken as proof or as an analysis of the proof.
Whether the tribunal is likely to be misled or the opposing party is likely to suffer prejudice depends on the nature of the case, the importance and probable tenor of the lawyer's testimony, and the probability that the lawyer's testimony will conflict with that of other witnesses.
Being able to work with different types of clients is a vital skill for all lawyers. While developing a complete skillset for client management takes many years, all lawyers can take one step to better understand their clients. The step is figuring out where the client fits into one of the four broad client types.
Client-type spotting is the same idea. A lawyer who can recognize his or her client as fitting into a certain type will be better prepared to deal with the client and to serve the client’s needs. The first type of client all lawyers need to be familiar with is the first-time client. This is the client who has either never used a lawyer, ...
A cousin of the frequent-flier client is the know-it-all client. Never forget that you are in charge and the client needs to know this. Often, clients can sense weakness or lack of certainty in their lawyers and take advantage of this. These clients will often try telling you how their case should be handled.
When communicating with the accused in a criminal matter, a government lawyer must comply with this Rule in addition to honoring the constitutional rights of the accused. The fact that a communication does not violate a state or federal constitutional right is insufficient to establish that the communication is permissible under this Rule. ...
A lawyer may also seek a court order in exceptional circumstances to authorize a communication that would otherwise be prohibited by this Rule, for example, where communication with a person represented by counsel is necessary to avoid reasonably certain injury.
A lawyer may not make a communication prohibited by this Rule through the acts of another. See Rule 8.4 (a). Parties to a matter may communicate directly with each other, and a lawyer is not prohibited from advising a client concerning a communication that the client is legally entitled to make.
Consent of the organization’s lawyer is not required for communication with a former constituent. If a constituent of the organization is represented in the matter by his or her own counsel, the consent by that counsel to a communication will be sufficient for purposes of this Rule. Compare Rule 3.4 (f).
See Rule 1.0 (f). Thus, the lawyer cannot evade the requirement of obtaining the consent of counsel by closing eyes to the obvious.
If an attorney manages to liase many or all all your issues, then you have already lost, especially if they have told you not to talk to the spouse and they have served their purpose by fait accompli. If it comes down to money, you have lost, that is the level of basic understanding marriage has become for males.
If you do decide to appeal the decisions of the family court, the Supreme Court, no less, will very likely uphold and support the malfeasance of the family court because the antics of the lower court personnel mirror those of the Supreme Court. I bet the family court personnel have recognized this and are busy minting.
And your are right, the judges dont know the laws and/or the Florida Statutes, so no one should take for granted that they do. But the reality is,,they dont know them because they dont have to know them, because they just fly by the seat of their pants and there is no one to check them.
The gal did not investigate any of the leads I gave him. The magistrate had a stay for seven months. And the clerk of courts refused to send out the subpoenas. The clerk of courts told my attorney’s staff they were to short of staff to fax the subpoenas over my attorney’s office the day before the trial.