An article in today's daily e-version of the New York Lawyer (originally from the Texas Lawyer) discusses a case in which an attorney in Texas was found to have concealed information from clients, resulting not only in the clients' disenfranchisement with the lawyer and his (former) firm, but also a $129,000 award to the clients.
According to the article, the clients, three surviving family members of the decedent in an asbestos case, were advised by the attorney that all of the defendants in the case had agreed to a settlement. Some time afterward, one of the defendants rescinded its settlement offer. The clients claim that they were never notified of the change, and that the firm never contacted them to advise that the settlement they would be receiving was less than anticipated.
The clients claimed that the failure to timely advise them of the rescinded settlement offer precluded them from pursuing the defendant at trial prior to the defendant's declaration of bankruptcy.
Perhaps even more disturbing, the clients claim that the law firm failed to respond to their numerous telephone calls and other inquiries after they realized that the settlement amount was less than originally agreed.
The lawyer handling the case claims that he never, "deliberately lied' to the clients. But the failure to advise the clients of the change was enough for a jury to determine that the lawyer breached his fiduciary duty to his clients.
According to the article, both the individual lawyer and the law firm argued that the clients had received a reasonable settlement of their claim, and that therefore, the clients had not suffered any damages.
One of the clients was quoted in the article saying that the lawsuit wasn't about the money. It was about the "principal of the thing" - and the lawyer's failure to communicate with them and to return telephone calls once the lower settlement amount was discovered.
Whether the lawyer's motion to set aside the verdict is granted or not, it is clear that the jury, made up of ordinary citizens (i.e. ordinary clients), found that the lawyer had acted improperly and breached the duty to his clients.
It isn't enough to do a 'good job' for your clients or to get them a 'fair settlement.' Ultimately, it is the client's decision whether or not to settle or to pursue a claim, and whether they think that the settlement is reasonable.
You can be the most technically competent lawyer in the world, but if you don't communicate with your clients and provide them with the information they think is important, you're taking a risk. "Not deliberately lying" to a client doesn't mean that you've acted ethically or responsibly - or that you're a good lawyer.
Amen. I do some work for law firms as clients (I am co-author of The Trusted Advisor, with David Maister and Rob Galford), though more with other professional services and complex organizations.
Of all the professions, in my experience, law firms are the most resistant--by and large, as a rule--to the idea of client satisfaction.
It's not that lawyers are anti-client by temperament, or that they don't appreciate having good relationships rather than poor. I think it's that they just plain don't see the importance of it, relative to great lawyering.
It's inconceivable that one of the Big Four would do accounting or systems work and not be significantly concerned with the client's assessment of their services. Ditto for most consulting firms; totally true for most financial planners and wealth managers. But lawyers--not so much.
It isn't just the complexity of the content--actuaries and CPAs have a lot of content to slog through as well. It probably has to do with the adversarial process. It's the only profession that has no concept of "truth," merely evidence. And so forth.
But at the end of the day, clients pay the bills and will have their way. See for example the great speech by Cisco Systems' CLO which is floating around. Or, as you note in this posting, juries who will not settle for "I didn't do anything illegal," or "I didn't lie." After all, "I am not a croook" doesn't even work in politics, and pretty low-trust line of business.
We should expect more from attorneys, and I suspect clients will get it.
Posted by: Charles H. Green | February 19, 2007 at 05:21 PM