ILNews

DTCI: Client relationships and effective case management

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

dtciAs lawyers, we’ve handled thousands of cases. We see new complaints weekly and draft answers and discovery while managing a full case load. The names of the plaintiffs and defendants blur into file numbers, and the allegations become routine – to us.

To our clients, the complaint and summons they receive will likely be the first such paper they’ve ever seen and, to make matters worse, the jargon contained in the papers makes them almost unintelligible. It is likely the first time they have ever been sued.

The summons may be the first document they’ve ever read commanding them to appear in court. The complaint may be the first time they have ever been accused of being careless or negligent. It is scary, hurtful, humiliating and infuriating, all at the same time. In fact, studies show that lawsuits can cause profound levels of stress and anxiety. The condition sometimes referred to as litigation stress syndrome can cause feelings of isolation, negative self-image, emotional problems, anger and fatigue and can affect relationships with spouses, children, neighbors or colleagues. (Sandra Tunajek, Dealing with Litigation Stress Syndrome, American Association of Nurse Anesthetists News Bulletin, July 2007, at 22-23; Sara C. Charles, Malpractice Litigation and its Impact on Physicians, 23 Current Psychiatric Therapy 173-80 (1986))

Both authors of this article recently had experiences in which our clients have shown us the true emotional impact that litigation can have on a new litigant. Their raw response to the litigation process served as a reminder that we must take a client’s emotional response to litigation into account – partly because it’s the right thing to do as counselors and partly because a failure to recognize the emotional toll of litigation may lead to real consequences during depositions or trial.

Andy recently learned that many defendants bring a heavy weight of anxiety to their first meeting with newly assigned defense counsel. Too often, we approach this meeting in a cavalier manner glossing over the allegations as standard language used by plaintiff’s counsel, saying it’s “nothing personal.”

To your new client, it is personal.

For instance, a new client came in recently to discuss her case. She was scared because the answer was due in two days, so she hired her own lawyer for fear that a judgment would be taken against her. The process was unfamiliar to her, and it took a while to convince her that the court would grant her an additional 30 days, something we take for granted.

As we discussed the complaint, she burst into tears while reading the allegations. Only then did I realize how quickly I had glossed over the allegations of negligence, having seen the same words a thousand times. It was the first time she had read them aloud to herself, that she was negligent in causing a little girl’s injury. It was the first time in her life that she had ever been accused of anything. “I’m not a bad person” she said repeatedly. No matter how many times I told her I knew that, she would hold up the complaint, point to the words, and say, “but they say I am, and the whole world can read this.” This meeting took several hours; not all of them do. But this time it was necessary to alleviate her fear and mistrust of a system with which she was unfamiliar and to help her understand that, just because someone accuses you of something, does not make it true or a reflection of your character.

Blaire had a slightly different experience, in that the client’s emotions weren’t readily apparent until after the verdict. The client was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which two gentlemen claimed that they were severely injured. In closing, we admitted that the jury heard some evidence of fault by our client but asked that they consider the other evidence and assign up to 50 percent fault to the plaintiffs and limit the plaintiffs’ recovery to their emergency room charges.

The jury returned its verdict and did exactly as we requested. I was thrilled. My excitement, admittedly, came from the thrill of good competition. We made an argument, and the jury accepted it. Our client, however, was in tears, and I was baffled. Our client’s own funds were never at issue in the case – she had applicable insurance coverage. It turns out that she wanted badly to have her feelings validated. She wanted the jury to believe her that the accident was not entirely her fault, and she wanted the jury to believe her that the gentlemen were not as injured as they claimed to be. The fact that the jury did believe her was more than she could handle in that moment and her tears flowed. A few days after the trial, she sent co-counsel and me a note thanking us for “being there for her.” Until then, I don’t think that I appreciated how truly vulnerable she’d felt during the trial.

In order to serve our clients effectively, we must recognize that each case is a significant matter for them. When the clients believe that we understand the significance of their cases to them, we enable them to relax and to share their stories with us. If the dialogue is open and comfortable, we may learn helpful facts that we would never have thought to seek. If, however, we fail to recognize the clients’ emotional responses to the litigation, those emotions may build up and present themselves at an inopportune time – such as during deposition or trial testimony. For instance, if counsel doesn’t take the time to learn that the client is offended by the lawsuit, counsel will lose the opportunity to help the client process that anger, and the client may take a sarcastic or rude tone with opposing counsel, which will only hinder negotiation or offend a jury. By helping the client recognize and address emotions early in the process, counsel helps to ensure that the client will be able to participate completely and freely in the defense of the case.•

__________

Andrew Hahn and Blaire Evans are litigation counsel for State Farm in Indianapolis.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  2. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT