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 AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
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