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. Yes diversity is so very important. With justice Rucker off ... the court is too white. Still too male. No Hispanic justice. No LGBT justice. And there are other checkboxes missing as well. This will not do. I say hold the seat until a physically handicapped Black Lesbian of Hispanic heritage and eastern religious creed with bipolar issues can be located. Perhaps an international search, with a preference for third world candidates, is indicated. A non English speaker would surely increase our diversity quotient!!!

  2. First, I want to thank Justice Rucker for his many years of public service, not just at the appellate court level for over 25 years, but also when he served the people of Lake County as a Deputy Prosecutor, City Attorney for Gary, IN, and in private practice in a smaller, highly diverse community with a history of serious economic challenges, ethnic tensions, and recently publicized but apparently long-standing environmental health risks to some of its poorest residents. Congratulations for having the dedication & courage to practice law in areas many in our state might have considered too dangerous or too poor at different points in time. It was also courageous to step into a prominent and highly visible position of public service & respect in the early 1990's, remaining in a position that left you open to state-wide public scrutiny (without any glitches) for over 25 years. Yes, Hoosiers of all backgrounds can take pride in your many years of public service. But people of color who watched your ascent to the highest levels of state government no doubt felt even more as you transcended some real & perhaps some perceived social, economic, academic and professional barriers. You were living proof that, with hard work, dedication & a spirit of public service, a person who shared their same skin tone or came from the same county they grew up in could achieve great success. At the same time, perhaps unknowingly, you helped fellow members of the judiciary, court staff, litigants and the public better understand that differences that are only skin-deep neither define nor limit a person's character, abilities or prospects in life. You also helped others appreciate that people of different races & backgrounds can live and work together peacefully & productively for the greater good of all. Those are truths that didn't have to be written down in court opinions. Anyone paying attention could see that truth lived out every day you devoted to public service. I believe you have been a "trailblazer" in Indiana's legal community and its judiciary. I also embrace your belief that society's needs can be better served when people in positions of governmental power reflect the many complexions of the population that they serve. Whether through greater understanding across the existing racial spectrum or through the removal of some real and some perceived color-based, hope-crushing barriers to life opportunities & success, movement toward a more reflective representation of the population being governed will lead to greater and uninterrupted respect for laws designed to protect all peoples' rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Thanks again for a job well-done & for the inevitable positive impact your service has had - and will continue to have - on countless Hoosiers of all backgrounds & colors.

  3. Diversity is important, but with some limitations. For instance, diversity of experience is a great thing that can be very helpful in certain jobs or roles. Diversity of skin color is never important, ever, under any circumstance. To think that skin color changes one single thing about a person is patently racist and offensive. Likewise, diversity of values is useless. Some values are better than others. In the case of a supreme court justice, I actually think diversity is unimportant. The justices are not to impose their own beliefs on rulings, but need to apply the law to the facts in an objective manner.

  4. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  5. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

ADVERTISEMENT