Choosing a lawyer according to our needs is not easy.
The figure of the lawyer is increasingly discredited in our country, it is not like before when everything said that someone was a lawyer, was impregnated a halo of respect around and was presupposed a great wisdom lawyers in rockford.
There are many surveys in which, along with bankers, lawyers are currently considered the professionals who generate less confidence.
We are many people who are dedicated to this profession, and unfortunately some have chosen to lower costs unsustainably and treat the profession as if they were selling vegetables in the market. It is true that we have all had to adapt to the current conditions, and that tariffs, forms and adapt to new times and technologies have to be made more flexible, but not at the cost of giving a terrible legal service to the client.
After a few years of exercise, I have been able to verify what are the main mistakes that people make when hiring a lawyer.
Common mistakes that make wrong choose the lawyer who will defend us.
1. Be based solely on the price
The price can be a differential option, but it should never be what drives us to stay with one or the other professional.
A good lawyer has had to go through at least four or five years of career, must be trained, have completed some master’s or postgraduate specialization, must buy books, sign up for courses and conferences, belong to an association, have experience and all it is a record that the professional has previously paid. To give an immediate response or not, but accurate, has required many elements that have a cost apart from the innate to exercise (maintenance of the office, supplies, expenses of the records management program, the collegial fee, web, domains, new technologies, jurisprudential database) that normally the client does not take into account and that must be paid in the fees, to give a better service.
All that, has a price and however much you want to cheapen, you cannot give a quality service if you do not pay a minimum, you cannot submit a demand in which there is a great job of prior study, writing, search of jurisprudence and legislation, and in which a lot of time has been invested in contacting the client and in negotiations with the opposite, if you do not pay for it.
The hard four pesetas do not exist.
2. To think that the lawyer who does not speak much in court or speaks less than the opposing party, does it wrong
We usually like that the lawyers speak and speak at the trial and explain our case in a lengthy explanation, and against more detailed, and extensive, more we like. And it is that way that makes us the effect, that we have many numbers to win the battle and that on the contrary we are putting a dialectic beating that will help to make Justice , understanding of course, that if justice has been done it is because we They have proved right.
Well, it is not always right to have that position, we must bear in mind that our trial may be the 15th in the morning, so when the 13.00 arrive, the judge’s attention, as a person, may have decreased considerably. So say fewer things. in a more concrete way, and only affect the points that have not been clear in the lawsuit, without repeating the same thing three times, it may be a better option than doing an endless explanation in which the honorable gentleman has disconnected for a while, and Thinking about if you are going to eat lentils or macaroni.
3. Demanding as many more people as possible
It is common to hear, “my lawyer has sued everyone,” and the satisfied client sees five people negotiating in the corridors or in the trial against his lawyer, which makes him think that his lawyer is very good, and could fight against an army if necessary. It is true that there are times when it is necessary to direct the lawsuit against several people or companies, to avoid being inadmissible, but some colleagues have a tendency to abuse it so that the client values it more, since most of the time, You could do without many of the defendants. This is often very common in the workplace, in which they demand a lot of people who from the outset are known to have nothing to do with the matter.
4. Hire the lawyer only when the problem has already occurred
Sometimes a preventive advice can avoid many headaches and have to spend a lot of money later.
We usually go to the professional when the situation is already fully involved, but if we acted with a prior legal advice for 60 or 120 € depending on the query, we could avoid a great later conflict.
5. A media lawyer does not have to be much better than someone who is not.
Many people let themselves be guided by advertisements, by the press, by publicity and the truth is that a lawyer who is mediatic, does not mean, that automatically is good, of course it can be, we do not question it, we all try to be there in one way or another, but you do not have to choose a lawyer simply because he appears in the media.
On many occasions the scared customer has arrived commenting that the opposing lawyer was well known on television. Without giving any importance, I replied that this did not cause me the slightest concern because on several occasions I have won cases more media lawyers than me. But I am sure that the true tranquility has reached the client when he has had the favorable sentence in his hands.
And is that many times the lawyer who takes the case, is different from the one entrusted to the matter, precisely because of that, because with so much appearance in media, you do not get to everything and the case ends up taking the fellow on duty with which we have not even talked about once.
I am sure that with these five steps it will be easier to choose the best lawyer, and if you are thinking about divorcing, I recommend you read this post with the steps to follow so that your divorce by mutual agreement is a total success.