Are You Still Hiring Dinosaur Lawyers?

How are you evaluating prospective attorneys?

Are you asking for verifiable metrics to support all their claims to excellence?

As my Los Angeles partner Marc Zimet likes to say, “If as a lawyer you’re not keeping track of metrics, you’re simply a blowhard!”

What Marc means is that great attorneys—great negotiators—can show you proof of their success. They have the data to back up their assertions, and they won’t hesitate to share it.

With over 90% of cases settling, collecting this data is crucial. Ask the attorneys on your list for ten examples in the past year where they resolved a case within ninety days of assignment (see the story below for a great example of what a master negotiator will tell you). Ask them to provide you with examples of cases where they were the second lawyer hired, and achieved excellent results contrary to the first lawyer’s recommendations and excessive billing.

You’ll see who has a track record of delivering results—and who’s bloviating.

Let’s disrupt something.

Bill

MASTERS OF NEGOTIATION

92% of all cases settle—but when?

Join me for Cruser Mitchell’s Masters of Negotiation series and come away with the skills you need to save legal fees and indemnity by creatively and efficiently resolving cases.

The next Masters of Negotiation Series begins September 6, 2023.

September 6 — Playing Chess Instead of Checkers: A Strategic Approach to Negotiation
September 20 — Soft Skills of a Master Negotiator
October 4 — The Leverage Point of Plaintiff’s Needs
October 18 — The Leverage Point of Collectability
November 1 — The Theatre of Mediation
November 15 — Identifying the 1% that will Go to Trial as Early as Possible

Do You Want to Hire a Dinosaur, or a Disrupter?

There are two types of lawyers: Disruptive Lawyers, who will resolve your case efficiently and economically, and Dinosaur Lawyers, who will bill you dry.

Still not sure who you should hire? Let me tell you a story about the time a Disruptive Lawyer saved his client over $200,000.

The Disruptive Lawyer received a call from an insurance client about a pending case. The client explained that her company’s insureds were a public entity and two police officers had been sued for wrongful arrest. The case had been handled by another panel firm—who market themselves as a "top tier public entity and great trial attorneys"—for the past year (Lawyer A), but a conflict developed, requiring another lawyer to represent one of the individual police officers. The client requested that the Disruptive Lawyer enter an appearance.

The Disruptive Lawyer learned that the case had been ongoing for more than a year. The defendants had lost on a motion to dismiss one year earlier, when the federal judge ruled that the arrest warrant presented to the magistrate was misleading and ruled the arrest warrant was UNLAWFUL. With this information, the Disruptive Lawyer contacted the insurance claims examiner and inquired, “Given the judge has ruled the warrant unlawful, where do we stand on settlement discussions?” The claims examiner explained that Lawyer A had reported, “Settlement is not an option because the plaintiff hasn't budged in a year and wants $350,000, which is a non-starter. Further, we think that MSJ is in play.” So, the parties had been litigating for the past year, with the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees increasing each day (plaintiffs can collect their attorney’s fees in civil rights cases if they prevail) and Lawyer A incurring significant fees.

The Disruptive Lawyer responded, “While I appreciate that one day in jail for an innocent woman may not be worth $350,000, in a fee-shifting case, there is no such thing as a ‘nonstarter’ in negotiation. This is especially true when the judge already has ruled the arrest was unlawful which means MSJ is NOT in play here. Further, plaintiff’s counsel has to have solid fees. We need to begin negotiations immediately.” The claims examiner indicated her strong desire to settle given the carrier was about to pay two law firms over $150,000 to defend the case through (complete waste of time) MSJ but candidly shared her lack of faith that a less-than-cost-of-defense settlement was possible given Lawyer A's proclamation that settlement negotiations were fruitless. And so, with complete skepticism, she gave the Disruptive Lawyer permission to initiate settlement discussions suggesting paying a large portion of the projected cost of defense authority.

Fast forward three weeks: The Disruptive Lawyer settled the case for $27,000.

The claims examiner was shocked, asking, “How did you get this done? Lawyer A said settlement was not possible.” She went on, noting that “You had the same facts. Same plaintiff. Same plaintiff’s attorney. Same judge. Same jurisdiction. Same $350,000 demand. So, what changed?”

The Disruptive Lawyer explained, “As we wrote in our book The Disruptive Lawyer’s Little Black Book of Litigation Management, negotiation and dealmaking require both the right mindset (focusing on early and creative resolution) and the right skillset (soft communication skills and high emotional intelligence). A dealmaker never sees any demand as a ‘non-starter.’ Rather, it is an invitation to begin a dialogue to settle.”

Those who don’t take note will go the way of the dinosaurs!

Fees Saved: over $100,000

Indemnity Saved: over $100,000

And, if you want to know the hand-to-hand combat negotiation strategy on this one, sign up for the Masters Of Negotiation webinar per the link above!

In the News

Recently, here in Atlanta, two women were fired for what they say was merely videoing and calling the police on shoplifters who had robbed a Lululemon store for literally the umpteenth time! Store policy dictated that they let the thieves go and simply code scan the stolen items as a loss. (Luluemon contends the women somehow tried to stop the thieves but the video does not reflect that.)

We’ve handled a lot of negligent security cases over the years. Having a policy of not calling the police to prevent crime as well as not then taking measures to increase security on premises to deter future crime is the perfect recipe for a serious exposure in the future. Specifically, in the inevitable escalation of such a crime (e.g. thieves, while in process of stealing, experience random customers taking the law into their own hands, leading to customers being shot), the policy as claimed above would be Exhibit A submitted by the plaintiff of the store owners’ negligence in failing to secure the premises.

When writing policies for your company, it is vital to anticipate how it will be used against the company. While the philosophy behind the policy of not wanting to prosecute for property theft is admirable, it opens up the store owner to significant liability. In effect, risk managers need to draft policies that protect your company, not open them to litigation and serious exposures.

The Disruptive Lawyer’s Tequila Corner

There is no question tequila is getting more and more popular—making me wonder if I’ve become a big-time influencer. So, if you’re going to stock your bar with tequilas, here are a few recommendations.

For mixer tequilas, go with Patrón Silver. Very smooth and compliments a Paloma perfectly.

For reasonably priced sipping tequilas, go with either Casamigos (Añejo, Reposado or Blanco/Silver), Don Julio (same), Milagro (Reposado), Herradura (Silver) or Don Julio 70 Cristalino.

And for the pricey stuff, go with the big boys—Don Julio 1942, Clase Azul (the beautiful ceramic bottles), Casa Dragones and Tequila Komos Extra Añejo.

Cheers!

Ready to get a little disruptive?

Join me for some Disruptive Litigation Advisement.

Thanks for reading The Disruptive Lawyer’s Little Newsletter.

Want to know more about how to disrupt litigation management? Follow me on LinkedIn.

Was this newsletter shared with you? Subscribe here.

The Disruptive Lawyer’s Laugh Break