Call 01279 215580

What Is the Most Common Failing in Litigation?

Posted: Friday, 11 June 2021 @ 09:09

As part the work which my firm does is that we find ourselves within the Court process. Often we end going to Court.

From my experience as a lawyer and having seen feedback in the Courts one of the most common failings I see is the tendency of other parties(sometimes other lawyers) to over-complicate the process.

When you are dealing with legal matters and in particular inheritance cases (which are often governed by the emotions of money and stressful relationships) it is very easy to get sucked into a multitude of issues.  

This can make management of a legal case difficult and can ultimately not serve the client.

It places the litigating party in a point of additional risk which is frequently underestimated, namely the approach of the Judge.

The crucial issue for any party to factor is that the Judge will not necessarily see the dispute how you and your lawyer do and once a Judge has his or hands on a case at any point that judge can latch onto anything.

Once a case goes before the Judge it is at a point of unpredictability however much preparation you have done.

But if you are narrow and disciplined in your approach you give less opportunity for a judge to go against you.

You mitigate the risk.

Alternatively you can have a situation where you have a real complex set of facts and a number of possible legal actions.

The real objective is not to go for all at once but to focus on the one where your client's case is the strongest.  

Thus it is why I am big fan of taking targeted legal action against parties as it maximises the scope for my clients to maintain control of the legal process and minimises the potential for the litigation to become sucked into irrelevant issues.

When faced with a complicated set of facts I am always to searching to identify what are the crucial issues in the case.  

For example, I will ask a client - From your point of view - what are the three most important issues to you?

As a lawyer if I can I will construct a letter to the opponent which consists of no more than one page. (Sometimes you have to go longer but the the principle of succinctness is what is driving things)

Less is more.

When an opposing lawyer wants to drive you elsewhere you can succinctly address these points but the principle remains focusing on core issues from the clients' point of view.

This requires discipline and an element of toughness to not deviate from what is the sole objective which is to achieve a good outcome for the client.

It will also influence the form of legal action.