How to avoid litigation before it begins
Efforts like legal project management and alternative fee arrangements have helped inside counsel gain control over litigations costs and options. Still, the least expensive litigation is the litigation you avoid.
April 05, 2013 at 05:15 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Efforts like legal project management and alternative fee arrangements have helped inside counsel gain control over litigation's costs and options. Still, the least expensive litigation is the litigation you avoid.
Inside counsel often have the opportunity to proactively guide their business clients in a manner that avoids litigation. When followed, litigation-avoidance advice can help mitigate litigation—even if it cannot be avoided. When that advice gets ignored, litigation is more likely to ensue—as is retention of outside counsel and the expenses they bring with them.
Sometimes it's better to be practical than right
Unfortunately in business decisions, common sense is still not so common. But businesses that use good judgment, stay calm and remain focused on their key objectives gain the upper hand in both the litigation they bring and the litigation they defend, not to mention the litigation they avoid. Being mindful of the following guidelines can minimize the chances that your business will become embroiled in unnecessary litigation.
- Maintain good relationships. The best way to avoid litigation is to nurture good relationships both internally and externally. No one wants to sue a friend or someone he likes. But more importantly, good relationships are highly valued. Therefore, both sides to a good relationship are going to be reasonable and take steps to preserve and improve those relationships. Building up equity in the form of good relationships allows you to draw on that equity when needed. If another party takes an action that harms your interest, it is much easier, cheaper and more effective to pick up the phone and ask that an accommodation be made in light of your longstanding relationship. Likewise, if it is your side that has harmed another party, you will be much likelier to avoid expensive litigation if you have a history of valuing that relationship and the party can trust that you will do right by it.
- Pick your battles wisely. Not everything on a project or in a relationship is going to go perfectly. Try to evaluate the “must haves” from the “it would be nices” and act accordingly. A “must have” outlook on everything will ultimately end up in litigation—either you will have to sue to get what you want or you will be sued to show you that you can't always get what you want. Better to listen to the Rolling Stones than to have to learn that lesson through litigation. Even if you win, it will not always be worth the time or the cost.
- Watch the tone. Tough decisions need to be made in business. And sometimes those decisions will cause people to be unhappy. But terminating a relationship or addressing an issue while sounding like a complete jerk is only going to escalate an already difficult situation. Striking a cordial, professional and perhaps even appreciative tone can help diffuse those situations. While we would hope that decisions of whether to litigate are made with good business judgment, the truth is that is not always the case. Emotion is not just found in family law; it can be as prevalent in the business world. If the tone you or members of your team take is unnecessarily abrasive or harsh, you are increasing your chances that your company will be sued. And if you are sued, you're not going to look good when those documents are pranced before the jury.
- Don't retaliate. So you've taken the high road, watched your tone and the other side fails to do the same. Step back and honestly ask what your objective is and what action will drive that objective. Nowhere in that analysis should “But they started it” be a factor. You will rarely be satisfied if your primary goal in suing is to “punish” the other side. The only ones who win under this scenario are the lawyers for the two parties.
- Be careful when escalating the dispute. Sometimes out of frustration or impatience, business people will threaten litigation, thinking it will make the other side quickly capitulate. Often, however, it has the opposite effect and only serves to more deeply entrench the other side in their position, and perhaps even bring in their own attorneys to assess potential counterclaims. This in turn greatly increases the odds of litigation, when that might not have been the actual desire of the threatening party.
- If there is a screw up, fix it. People screw up. It is usually done inadvertently and often it only is visible with 20-20 hindsight. But when it happens, fix it. That might mean paying someone for something that they did not receive, covering the cost of the resulting injury or disclosing more information to the marketplace. Sometimes it might even mean reporting the conduct to a regulatory or investigatory body. How to go about fixing the problem, however, should be decided with the assistance of in-house legal counsel—and possibly outside counsel as well. Often you may want to fix it without admitting wrongdoing, so work with your counsel to figure out the best way to do this. But if you can fix the problem, you can minimize the chances that the other party will try to fix it through litigation.
Conclusion
Sometimes it is impossible to avoid litigation. But if you have to litigate over an issue, do it because litigation was the best way to meet a business objection or was a last resort—not for a petty reason that serves no purpose.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
GCs Jettisoning Zero-Based Budgeting in Quest to Be Nimble, More Efficient
3 minute readFoley & Lardner Litigator Joins Brewers Roster as Legal Chief
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250