If you are a civil litigator and a matter you have handled through pleadings, discoveries and unsuccessful mediation must now go to trial, would you consider recommending that your client hire a lawyer who has substantially more trial experience to run the trial, with your continued involvement? Assume the cost to the client would be the same as if you took the trial.
If the answer is No, is it because:
A) a new lawyer could never get the feel for the evidence you have built up through your involvement;
B) it is not worth it merely for more trial expertise ;
C) loss of revenue to you;
D) it would harm your image with your client;
E) other reasons.
If the answer is Yes, it is because ;
A) a second set of eyes is valuable;
B) more trial expertise is worth it;
C) fewer and fewer lawyers have trial expertise;
D) you might in fact engage the trial lawyer earlier in the process;
D) other reasons.
May I have your candid thoughts on these questions? Please add a Comment or email me directly.
If in either case the answer is “other reasons”, or “Maybe”, please explain.
Given the sharp and continuing decline in court room advocacy and the ascent of mediation over the last decade, a lawyer who restricts their practice to advocacy would need a significant referral base to keep the wolf from the door, despite the lower overheads of such a practice.
It would be interesting to know if a market exists in Ontario (or anywhere else in Canada) for specialized civil advocacy services, or if one is likely to emerge.