High Hopes, Reasonable Expectations, and Attorney Fees
Last week, I wrote about the Shadley case, and encouraged that care be taken in selecting causes of action and damages when there’s an attorney fee clause in the underlying contract. There are other lessons to be taken from that case, though, that apply to lawyers and clients alike.
It’s not unusual for clients to have unreasonable expectations, and for lawyers to do too little to correct the belief. In Shadley, we can’t tell whether it was the client that wanted the damaged piano and her daughter’s education paid for, along with repainting a variety of rooms in the broken home, or whether it was the lawyer who encouraged the claims. In the end, I guess it doesn’t really matter. We just know that it didn’t turn out well because expectations weren’t adjusted.
It’s the responsibility of both lawyers and clients to work together to set reasonable expectations about the outcome of a dispute. Clients come to lawyers to benefit from our experience and training — let’s face it, pretty much anyone can describe a dispute in writing and file it with the court. That’s hows small claims court functions.
Clients need to remember that part of what they pay for is our role as counsel: our detachment from the emotion of the dispute and our ability to dispassionately weigh the evidence and arguments on both sides. Sure, the advocacy part of the relationship is a big one, but that’s based upon a rational judgment as to what arguments and evidence are most convincing to someone who doesn’t care who wins or loses.
Lawyers, for their part, should immediately share their opinions about expectations, and begin to educate clients on the possible outcomes of the dispute. The Shadley case demonstrates that when the lawyer/client relationship doesn’t function completely properly, it can be costly.
