Do You Really Want an “Aggressive” Attorney?

/in /by

Run a simple search on Google for “aggressive attorney”  and you’ll find page after page of attorneys claiming to be “aggressive” or “the most aggressive!”  I guess they’re advertising as “aggressive” because that’s what clients are looking for?  Why? Because you have a really important case and you want to CRUSH the other side? Trust me, if this is what you want, you can find hundreds of lawyers to tell you “I’m your man/woman!”  But, a good lawyer will say something different; a good lawyer will ask you “why?”

If you are seeking an aggressive attorney, you are most likely being driven, at least in part, by emotion.  An attorney’s job, however, is not to validate your emotions. Good attorneys listen to their clients to ascertain the clients’ real goals.  Are you looking for a business solution to a problem that has gotten out of control? Are you looking to protect the reputation of your brand?

Your attorney’s tactics need to be dictated by the ends you are trying to reach.  Yes, at some point in time, aggression may be the proper tactic for some portion of the case. But, deploying aggression for the sake of aggression is foolish and costly.  A blindly aggressive attorney fosters a bad relationship with opposing counsel and decreases, not improves, the probability of resolving your dispute.  If your goal is to spend as much money as possible, by all means, hire a self-proclaimed “aggressive” attorney.  Otherwise, look for an attorney who manages your litigation risks and knows the proper time and place for aggression.

Apple Loses in Short-Term, Wins in the Long Run with Smart Litigation Risk Management Strategy

/in /by

Yesterday, Apple Co. announced a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) where it would refund at least $32.5 million largely to parents who were victims of excessive in-app purchase by their kids.  In some cases, kids racked up thousands of dollars of purchases in iPad and iPhone games. The Washington Post has the story:

http://tinyurl.com/mbj4vrq

Now, Apple had a good argument that parents should be responsible for the actions of their children.  But, Apple made the smart litigation risk management decision.  Instead of advancing a legally correct but unpopular position, they agreed to pay a nominal amount to victims and are using this settlement for positive p.r. (Apple is now gushing about its protection of children).

When a company can remove emotion from the equation, they can make a sound business decision. Sometimes, the right answer is “fight to the death.”  Other times, the right answer is settlement and a positive public relations campaign.  As one of the most successful companies in the world, Apple made the smart litigation risk management decision.

Please! Put Me back in Prison!

/in /by

A bit off topic, but since I’m getting married this week, I found this quite humorous.

Apparently, a 32-year-old Italian drug dealer who was under house arrest for his wayward actions requested that Italian authorities place him in prison. Why? His nagging wife. You know it’s true love when you prefer prison over marriage, right?

The Local – Italy’s News in English has the story.

Kleargear.com Buys Disasterous Results By Listening to Its “Smart” Lawyers

/1 Comment/in /by

I rely weekly on review sites like Yelp! and Ripeoffreport.com to help me make decisions on everything from where to get a meal in a different city to which type of tires I should get for better off-road performance. And, occasionally, when a company does a great job or a poor job, I’ll add in my own two cents on these sites. Well, you certainly can’t get in trouble for exercising your “free speech” rights, right? Think again.

The obscure (and soon to be out-of-business) Kleargear.com–who seems to sell stuff you’d find in a modern-day Spencer’s Gifts–snuck a “non disparagement” clause into their on-line sales contract. Essentially, if you buy something from them, you agree not to trash them on-line. If you do say something negative about them, you face a $3500 fine.

Now, a first-year law student will tell you that there is nothing wrong with this clause. We’re Americans and we’re free to enter into any sort of contract. Moreover, buyer beware!?! But, what kind of short-sighted attorney allows their client to not only draft a non-disparagement clause, but then tries to enforce it to the tune of $3500? Attorneys who are trained to see the big picture know that just because a business has the legal right to do something doesn’t mean that it makes good business sense.

Before this week, several thousand Americans knew of kleargear.com. Now, in a short-sighted effort to protect its image on the internet, millions of Americans know of this company…and I can’t imagine any of them anxious to do business with them.

CNN has a story on this case:
Kleargear.com Fails to Manage its Legal Risks

https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/scra/

/in /by

I recently came across a situation where a collection company was coming after a service member of the US Army for a bad debt and threatening a lawsuit. But, the collection company should have known better. The Service Members Civil Relief Act prohibits many financial-related claims and lawsuits against service members while they are on active duty. If you know someone who is proudly serving this country, but is being harassed by a debt collector, let them know that they don’t have to stand for it.

More information can be found at: https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/scra/