Section 5.  Relationship with the Lawyer

 

Subsection 5. 1.  The Foundation of Trust

 

When you have decided to employ a lawyer, you should have trust in the lawyer. Do not hide or overlook anything related to the case because anything missing or facts that are a little distorted may greatly influence the case. The priority requirement of the lawyer is to keep confidentiality, and the lawyer has the special Attorney-Client Privilege. No one, including the court and the judge, can compel to disclose the client's confidential information. In handling a case, the ability of the lawyer to grasp all information is very important. For example, in a litigation, the client did not disclose some information to the lawyer so the lawyer organize and plan the litigation based on what he knows. Unexpectedly, the undisclosed information was discovered by the opposition.  The lawyer then had to spend twice the amount of time to consult the client and revise his plan, losing both time and advantages.

 

During a litigation, the client himself is definitely going to be very anxious, which is understandable. Therefore, some people would call the lawyer repeatedly asking for a status report of the case. Sometimes the calls are just to tell the lawyer that he is not feel too great and actually very anxious, or to plead with the lawyer to try his very best, and similar statements. In the United States, the time a lawyer spends talking with a client billable. The conversations over the phone is labeled telephone conference and charges are the same as meeting in the office.  Since the case has been turned over to the lawyer, at what point does the lawyer need to contact the client to report on progress, or to seek information or to discuss response is for the lawyer to decide. To call him up without any purpose is voluntarily spending money not caused by the lawyer.

 

A client's dissatisfaction with the lawyer usually stems from paying attorneys fees. And the fee dispute between attorney and client is usually based on two kinds of situations. First, the client does not trust the lawyer, and even suspects that the lawyer intentionally drags on so as to collect higher fees. Second, the fee arrangement has not been clearly spelled out from the beginning and only when the invoice is received then it is discovered that the amount is beyond expectation.

 

As far as the first point is concerned, I cannot say that no lawyer is messy with his billings, but basically a lawyer has a definite standard for the collection of fees;  there are guidelines for billing in a certain way for a certain kind of service. In handling legal matters, the lawyer naturally has his own judgment of what is the proper thing to do based his professionalism and experience.  However, many people need to employ a lawyer but do not trust the lawyer. In some matters during a litigation they may even believe that their thinking and ways of doing things are better than what the lawyer can do. Thus many issues arise.

 

For a lawyer, the least favored client may be a scholar or a doctor. These two types of clients are high level professionals and are used to thinking of themselves as generally respected authorities. They also know how to do research and often believe that they themselves can handle the case and know the ways to respond. So when the lawyer suggests ways of dealing with certain matters, they often insist on their own opinions and show the research they themselves have collected. Once this happens, the lawyer finds it difficult to do things. On the one hand, he needs to respond to the opposite litigant's actions. On the other side he has to deal with his own client. Spending more time is relatively not a big deal, but if the clients do not act according to the suggestions or strategies at the last stages, the lawyer's entire plan may be disrupted. Litigation is like playing chess. Making a wrong move may cause losing the entire match.  When a lawyer meets a client who makes decision on his own and acts disruptively at any time, the lawyer will have a big headache. If a case is lost because a client is ignorant or acts erratically, the ultimate loser is the self destructive client.   

 

Take as example a commercial business litigation several years ago that I handled. The plaintiff I represented was a retired professor.  In a business transaction he was defrauded several tens of thousand dollars. The evidence of his case was not very strong and the odds of winning were only 50%. During the litigation, the professor expressed many opinions and believed that he grasped the winning formula. The ideas he insisted on were merely the thinking of non legal professionals. I had to explain to him different legal principles many, many times and used many experiences to advise him. By the time he understood and was satisfied, a lot of my time was spent. When the case went to trial, I impressed on him multiple times not to express to many ideas and showed off his learning. He should only answer the questions asked by the lawyers, because talking too much would risk making mistakes. However, from the moment he took the stand, he continuously showed off his competence and analytical ability. The other side was exactly the opposite. He acted intentionally confused like an crude, uneducated individual, sometimes mixing up logic and was vague in answering the questions.

 

Eventually we won the lawsuit, but I had been really worried. Fortunately it was a court trial. If it had been a jury trial and the jury saw that the quantity of evidence was about equal for both sides and evaluated the case in a common sense manner, it was possible they would believe the other side because who would believe that such as sharp college professor could have been defrauded by a confused individual for several tens of thousands of dollars?

 

The purpose of citing different types of examples is to explain that, once a client employs a lawyer, unless he has sufficient reasons to suspect the ability of the lawyer, otherwise he must cooperate with the lawyer and listen to his advise. If there is suspicion about the lawyer, it may be better just to change to a different lawyer. Or the uncertainties would waste time and money.

 

Subsection 5.2.  Honesty is the Top Priority

 

The following is a story I experienced personally.

 

Several years ago, I was dining in a restaurant.  Not far behind me was the cashier register of the restaurant. I was chatting with some friends when suddenly I heard a scream by the restaurant manager, "Robbery!". I turned my head and saw two men rushing out the door. My immediate reaction was to get up and chase after the two robbers, wishing to find out the direction they ran.  I worried that they could have weapons, so I maintained a safe distance. After the two robbers left the restaurant, they jumped onto a small pickup truck parked in the open air parking lot. In the car was a driver, an accomplice. I chased after the truck, attempting to see the license plate number.  However, no matter how hard I tried I failed, because I was a little bit near sighted. All I could see was a plate of whiteness. However, I could at least identify the model of the pickup truck and its color.  As the restaurant reported to the police immediately and could give the model and color of the car, most important there was luck, the police quickly apprehended the gang in a road block. 

 

To make a long story short, several months later I was summoned by the prosecutor of the case to testify in court. In the court, the prosecutor asked me about what I saw happen, then it was the turn of the defense counsel to cross examine me.  He asked me the color and model of the pickup truck.  I replied to all questions.

 

Then he asked me: "Did you see the number of the license plate?"

I answered:  “No!”

The lawyer asked:  “Nothing at all?"

I answered truthfully:  "I only saw the license plate, but I did not see the number."

The lawyer asked:  "What was the color of the license plate?"

I searched my brain to remember, and then said, "White color". Then thinking briefly I added, “I only saw a flash of whiteness at the back of the truck". The lawyer did not pursue the questions.

 

After completing my testimony, the prosecutor said to me, "Fortunately you answered completely truthfully, or the testimony a while ago would ruin everything". I asked him for the reason. The prosecutor explained that, actually when the police caught the robbers, the license plate on the truck had already been removed. All I saw was merely a white flash, the reflection from the bumper guard of the truck. If I had  answered in court that I had seen a number but I merely could not see clearly, or that I had forgotten the number, the defense would have a very strong argument. My testimony would have lost credibility.

 

Honesty as a top priority is a dictum in testifying. It is because lies or fabrications are easily exposed and the damage created would be incalculable. Besides, handling a case can cover a very long period. From giving the first statement up to testifying in court, the time elapsed may be one or two years. If the initial answer had been untruthful, after a period of time the client will find it difficult to remember his initial answers, and contradictions will appear.

 

In the past few years, many people from Hong Kong immigrated to the United States. For many people, the application of immigration status is often the first contact with American law. Here I cite another true story.

 

A lawyer represents a couple applying for immigration. The wife is an American citizen. The husband is a Hong Kong resident.  They met in Hong Kong. The husband then followed her to the United States and stayed. According to American immigration law, the husband should have no problem applying for immigrant status since he is married to a spouse who is an American citizen. He only has to apply to the immigration service and arrange a date for an interview with an immigration officer.  After the immigration officer examines and verifies all the proofs, he will approve the change of status of the spouse of the American citizen, from a non immigrant visa to the holder of a green card. The problem is that there is quite an age difference between the couple, and it is the wife who is older. Any experienced immigration officer generally will be suspicious of this type of situation. If there are errors in the questions and answers during the interview, the immigration officer definitely will pursue very far. If it is discovered that there is indeed a problem with the marriage, not only will the immigration status be denied, there is a possibility that a phony marriage charge will be made and in the future there is little chance the person will be admitted into the United States. 

 

This married couple were really married, but because of their age difference the lawyer has warned them to expect tough questioning and asked them to be careful to avoid making errors in the interview. What is meant by preparation is first of all to tell the truth because the immigration officer may ask many questions about the private relations of the couple, and not telling the truth will create loopholes. The lawyer spent considerable time and energy to rehearse the questions that are anticipated from the immigration officer and have the clients answer them in a kind of practice session. In so doing, the legal fees may be higher but after a rehearsal in advance, the husband and wife would be more familiar with the procedure and the anticipated questioning.  The lawyer feels a little better afterwards.

 

As expected, when the time for the interview, after talking for just a couple of minutes the immigration officer separated the husband and wife to be questioned separately. This is common practice when the immigration services have some suspicion about the applicants' marriage and want to compare their testimonies to see if they are mutually consistent. The lawyer had already told them that this would happen so the clients were rather concerned. The immigration officer first asked the husband about how he and his wife met and how they decided to get married, and other questions. Even some matters about private lives were in the scope of inquiry. For example, what does your wife do first thing when she gets out of bed? How big is your bedroom? What is the color of the carpet?  In what drawer does the wife put her clothes? The husband answered all these questions properly. Then the immigration officer asked him one last question, "When you got married, what did you give to your wife as wedding gift?". The husband answered truthfully that he did not give her any gift.

 

When it was the wife's turn to be questioned by the immigration officer, she replied also quite smoothly and honestly. Just when the lawyer was beginning to relax, the immigration office asked the wife the same question about a wedding gift. Unexpectedly the wife answered, "He gave a ring". The sharp immigration officer did not waste any time and said to the lawyer, "Your two clients have inconsistent testimonies. The marriage is phony".

 

More than a month of preparation evaporated over one single question.  Afterwards, upon inquiry by the lawyer, he found that the contradiction was caused by the wife's lying. The lawyer asked her why she did not tell the truth to the immigration officer, and she replied, "I thought that getting married is an important event in life. If I say there was no wedding gift, the immigration officer may not believe me. So I change my answer at the spur of the moment.  I have no idea he would say no".

 

The consequence of just saying one wrong thing was not only the denial of the immigration application, but even more serious problems were created. Eventually the application was accepted by the immigration service after an arduous appeal and persistent persuasion, but the difficulties were enormous and the amount of lawyer's fees increased tremendously. From this small example one should learn that under most circumstances, no matter how skillful the lawyer is, the dishonesty of the client is beyond the lawyer's control.