'Take Your Adversary to Lunch' Can Pay Off Down the Line
The Atlanta Bar Association encourages members to take an adversary to lunch at this time of year to encourage civility and professionalism. It also can be taken as a chance to demonstrate character, build reputation and develop business.
February 16, 2018 at 12:30 PM
4 minute read
For years, the Atlanta Bar Association has encouraged its members to take an adversary to lunch at this time of year. The idea is to encourage civility and professionalism, but it also could be regarded as an exercise in business development.
Getting to know a lawyer you usually regard as an adversary makes it easier for the two of you to refer business to each other or suggest that others do so. All things being equal, most of us would rather do business with someone we like and who treats us with respect. I know some litigators and other lawyers believe being a jerk commands the respect of colleagues, but actually it just earns you a reputation of being hard to work with.
“Take Your Adversary to Lunch” takes place during February this year. Members who participate can enter a drawing for gift cards from the Buckhead Life Group restaurants. The top prize is two $200 gift cards, one for the Atlanta Bar member and one for the adversary. Members can submit up to five entries if they take that many adversaries to separate lunches.
Todd Poole hasn't won a gift card by taking an adversary to lunch, but he has built relationships. Poole, the founding member of the law firm Poole Huffman, remembers the first time he participated in the program. It was 2010, a year after he had founded the firm, and he was working hard to create his personal brand. He was involved in a contentious case and reached out to his adversary, who suggested dining at a country club where he was a member. Poole jokes that the country club was an aspirational destination for him at the time.
The lunch went well, with trust built on both sides. While it didn't immediately lead to a referral, he credits the rapport built during lunch with allowing the parties to come to a resolution. Later, he received a call from a client referred by opposing counsel. Poole says his lunch experience demonstrated that opportunities to build a relationship with an adversary can improve both the case and lead to business in the future. Since then, he's looked for opportunities to get to know more colleagues that he used to consider on the “other side.”
“We run into the same people time and again,” Poole says. “It's a small community when it boils down to it.” When there is a break in a deposition or before a court session begins, he often will chat with his adversary. The conversation could be about other cases or family life or Georgia football. “A lawyer can't in good conscience refer a client if they haven't spoken to me and gotten to know me,” he says.
Poole is ever alert for opportunities to promote his practice. He may mention that he does collections, one of his firm's niche practices and an area where many firms look for help.
Not that it's always “Kumbaya” between Poole and opposing counsel. “Look, we're not above getting frustrated with opposing counsel,” Poole says, but it has become easier for him to check himself. He may place a letter to opposing counsel in his desk for the night before, rereading it in the morning for tone. Given the pace of communications in a digital world, that is not always feasible. When it needs to be sent that day, he will ask a colleague to read the email or letter to make sure it strikes the right tone, which he defines as “professional.”
Don't underestimate what your reputation means in the legal community. Good character is its own reward, but it's also good for business.
Robin Hensley's column is based on her work as president of Raising the Bar and coaching lawyers in business development for more than 25 years. She is the author of “Raising the Bar: Legendary Rainmakers Share Their Business Development Secrets.”
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 AllBusiness Breakups: Why Business and Commercial Cases Are Well-Suited to Mediation
5 minute readIn RE: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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