Litigation: Trying the client’s case, not mine
Regardless of who attends a corporate client's case and how often, the client should be informed of strategy and objectives each day.
February 20, 2014 at 03:00 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The day before a recent trial was to get under way, I met with my main contact at the client, the in-house counsel of a large manufacturing company, and asked, “What do want from me during the trial?”
His response: “Keep proving my decision to hire you was a good one.”
I knew what he meant. Not only was it my job to be successful in court, but also to do it in a way that best supported my client, the company.
As trial lawyers, we must never forget that we serve the client. There are some lawyers who tell clients, “It's my case, and I'm trying it this way.” It is not the trial lawyer's case, however. It's always the client's case. Everything a lawyer does in that courtroom must serve the client's case.
The best way to ensure I try the client's case is to stay in close communication with my main contact throughout the trial. Some clients come to court every day, while others prefer to read the daily transcripts. Most are a mix of the two with out-of-town clients more likely to attend the opening and closing arguments rather than drop in regularly. It is also rare that a general counsel will be the one who comes. Usually, it is a member of the in-house legal team, who will keep superiors and stakeholders informed on the day's activities.
Regardless of who attends and how often, the client should be informed of strategy and objectives each day. This usually includes:
- The content and style of opening and closing statements.
- Key messages communicated about the client during that day's sessions, and the reasons for them.
- Strategy for examination and cross-examination of witnesses. This includes the information sought during questioning, and strategies for subsequent witnesses.
- Thoughts on how the jury perceives the trial so far, and any potential strengths or weaknesses in terms of their reactions.
In addition to the above, it is also important to keep communications open with the client representative in terms of whether or not circumstances favor a settlement. It might be that weaknesses emerge during opening statements that could push settlement as a more attractive option. Or, the opponent's case might reveal itself later on during the trial, and a new assessment of settlement options presents itself then. By staying in constant communication with the client, the trial lawyer is able to take advantage of these windows, which can be brief and close swiftly. The client's interests are only served when the result is the best possible outcome, and that could be a settlement, or it could mean pushing through to a verdict or ruling.
A trial is not some fixed system that, once set in motion, cannot be altered. Clients and their lawyers must stay in constant communication so as to adjust strategies and tactics in a way that serves the company as a whole. In this way, a litigator truly serves the client, his or her superiors, and the company itself.
Disclaimer: This is for general information and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice for any particular matter. It is not intended to and does not create any attorney-client relationship. The opinions expressed and any legal positions asserted in the article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of Miles & Stockbridge P.C., its other lawyers, or InsideCounsel.
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
© 2025 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 All‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
5 minute readIn-House Lawyers Are Focused on Employment and Cybersecurity Disputes, But Looking Out for Conflict Over AI
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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