Why Lawyers Charge the Way They Do!

Bapoo Malcolm 18 May 2017

Public Interest

We wrote about judges not necessarily knowing all the laws, and got quite a bit of flak. No matter. At least, we are being read.

The third editorial in daily newspapers has, historically, been a tongue-in-cheek offering. While many a truth is hidden in jest, wry humour, every day, is difficult to create. So, when a finance daily takes on the lawyers, the courts and yoga, one needs to reflect on the column.

The Supreme Court was hearing a petition about yoga; overburdened, it has to suffer the indignities emanating from frivolous issues. The brethren had to decide whether or not yoga should be mandatory in schools. With such earth-shaking disputes on hand, the bench thought that levity was not in order. The opposing advocates were asked if any of them actually knew anything about yoga.

You be the judge. And judge the judges on this: Did the bench have the right to ask such a question?

You be the judge on this too: Should the lawyers have known more than they did?

Not being Baba Ramdev, someone mumbled something about pranayama, but the odds are that he must have heard it in passing, without actually understanding its true meaning. About whether the advocates failed in their duty, we think they did. If we firmly believe that every judge need not know every law, we equally strongly believe that every lawyer must be superbly versed in the brief that he holds. Otherwise, he is doing his client grave disservice.

It is incumbent upon every lawyer, advocate and counsel, to keep himself abreast of the intricacies of the dispute; he needs to grill his client more than questioning the opponent in cross-examination. The client needs to be both truthful and comprehensive in his explanations. He must, first of all, draw up a chronology of events leading to the dispute. He must collect all the documents pertaining to the case. Every scrap of paper is important. As I sit at home and type this, I realise that we have a roof over our heads because of one single envelope; one that I was using as a bookmark. Nothing is unimportant. The lawyer’s duty, next, is to segregate the wheat from the chaff, check the evidentiary documents against the chronology. He needs to punch holes in his own client’s story, fill in the gaps and make a coherent narrative to be presented to the court. He has to put himself in the shoes of the judge.

The next stop is the library. The lawyer must check on available material that relates to the case. He may have to go back years, even a hundred years, to dig out previously decided cases that bolster his own. Foundations may have been laid; he now needs to build the house. Nearly 40 years ago, a young advocate had upbraided me with some very wise words. “Never think you know everything. The other advocate will know what you do not.”

Overworked counsels sometimes rush through briefs; read only the prayers. The client should not force the pace. He should understand that humans can do only so much and give the advocate time to digest the matter. If not prepared, encourage asking for an adjournment. It will be granted. No litigant can suffer for the fault of his advocate. Courts are understanding and accommodative. There is, of course, a limit.

If the lawyer has to know all about the complexities and pitfalls, he needs help from the client. After all, the client has been in the thick of the situation and knows best. This is not a visit to the doctor where one pays the fees and gulps down the medicine. Legal warfare is against astute opponents and their appointees. Unlike germs, these forces fight back. Preparation is the key.

With this, we say ‘Good luck’ and hope readers understand why lawyers charge the way they do!

Comments

User

manoharlalsharma

9 years ago

there r two types of advocates one who can argue and second can make your case settled with out argument the second one r costly because they manege court staff as well stay of important government orders or they even wait till some favorable Judge will come and do settle his matter with pocketful of money so it depends on the kind of case you e fighting.

Pradeep Kumar M Sreedharan

9 years ago

Advocate admits that he didn't file because he got a phone call.
Next advocate was overheard that such cases land up once in a blue moon (meaning he has to harvest when the sun shines)
Next advocate takes my car, knocks down somebody in drunken driving and takes refuge in a judge's house to escape law.

Sometimes money, like beauty is a curse.

Pradeep Kumar M Sreedharan

Replied to Pradeep Kumar M Sreedharan comment 9 years ago

Habeas corpus

Bapoo Malcolm

9 years ago

In every case there is a winner and a loser. One never hears a winner complain about the system. It's natural and logical.

Then again, when losers complain, is it not possible that they had a bad case to begin with? Or that they messed it up by not telling their lawyer the whole truth. Or that they did not do exactly as the lawyer suggested, but did something on the advice of an 'expert' or a 'friend' or 'someone who knew someone'. We have a case like that on our hands right this moment. Then why should the lawyer care what happens? How often does a lawyer have to clean up the mess that clients create? How many clients stick to just one lawyer and his advice? How many clients lay ALL their cards on the table? How many clients try for short cuts and actually prolong the case? How many clients fail to turn up regularly in courts?

There is a saying that it takes two to tango. So, when one hears complains from one side, especially the losing side, I say, let us hear the other side also. Audi alteram partem. It's the basis of law. Maybe the losing side got what it deserved.

MUKUND SHAH

9 years ago

The trial court judges are like a pathological lab owner.. blindly signe on a report tabled by a lab manager.. the trial court judge belive on a report of police constable...(a man to be purchase in Rs.100/-) this also base on distric hospital compounder report (report are made as per requirements of advocate) also give prime facie conclusion on a blind trust on a n advocate.. etiches of a judge and an advocate is on papers the actual facts to run the business of advocates and to increase the pending nos of cases. unsolve for or up to the life of senior citizens

Pradeep Kumar M Sreedharan

9 years ago

As a very well to do, marine engineer, who damaged his psyche, reduced to such penury that I could only afford to eat twice a day and damaged his career irreparably, in a 5 years divorce case, I know for sure why the lawyers charge the way they do. The court case abruptly reached conclusion once they realised, there is no more balance in my savings. Then they tried to aquire my car and washing machine at deep discount. Now I have reconstructed my life and is free of bitterness. This was more than 15 years ago. I find, to my dismay, the lawyers haven't changed and hence simply letting the "fate (law) take it's course without any lawyer representing me. I have no respect for the existing system. I find it hilarious that, in the age of Artificial Intelligence, the judge spends most part of the day calling attendance. Amazing lack of shame.

Bapoo Malcolm

9 years ago

The Amicus Curiae means he or she is a Friend (Amicus) of the court (Curiae). Usually, he is appointed by the court in a complicated matter or something in which the bench wants a dispassionate view. He must be well versed in the matter, and may not be a lawyer. Some call an intervenor an Amicus Curiae, but I think that is incorrect. An intervenor has some interest, personal, in the case, but has been initially excluded. For example, two brothers are fighting over a deceased father's property, keeping the sister out of the court case. The sister can intervene as an intervenor. That is obviously different from being court appointed, which an Amicus Curiae is. Usually, the work done is 'pro bono', free of charge. Hope the explanation is sufficient and useful. Thanks for asking. Shows readers' interest in what we do.

Gurudutt Mundkur

9 years ago

What is the AMICUS CURIE for?

Bapoo Malcolm

9 years ago

No one need be careful of Bapoo. But he likes people who are open up front. I guess I know who the silent simple man is.

Bapoo Malcolm

9 years ago

We do not answer anonymous people. If one is so scared to identify himself or herself, "Get off the mailing lists". Simply put, Simpleton! Name yourself. Show your face. Bare your teeth. Be a MAN.

Govinda Warrier

Replied to Bapoo Malcolm comment 9 years ago

Some people may be either shy or afraid. But allow them to express their views. We need not respond to everything. I've a friend who Informed me, he had purchased a laptop and had taken an internet connection. As we were talking over the phone, I asked his email ID. He said: Of course, I've an ID. But I've given it only to my daughters. These days, you know... We have to be careful..."
I think, this Simple Indian is a "careful" human being!

Simple Indian

9 years ago

While I understand Mr. Bapoo Malcolm's view, I feel one of the root causes of delay in judicial matters in India is indiscriminate adjournments granted by judges to unscrupulous lawyers who charge per appearance/day. Hence, I do not believe that only 'overworked' lawyers seek adjournments to better prepare their briefs & arguments in the "interest of clients". Lawyers too need to do some soul-searching on this, and not justify their greed. Moreover, lawyers, like doctors, scientists, teachers/professors, etc. are knowledge-driven professionals. Hence, they ought to be well-versed in their field of practice to be competent enough to represent clients. Clients don't pay for your degrees, but for your proven competency and track record.

SRINIVAS SHENOY

9 years ago

An interesting and well thought write up justifying exactly, why lawyers charge the way they do.

Vaibhav Dhoka

9 years ago

These days lawyer need not know the law,but his talent lies in managing the JUDGE.We are now era of Management.

ksrao

9 years ago

As the saying goes, a bad lawyer knows how to milk his client. A good lawyer knows the law. A better lawyer knows the judge.

ksrao

9 years ago

As the saying goes, a bad lawyer knows how to milk his client. A good lawyer knows the law. A better lawyer knows the judge.

Govinda Warrier

9 years ago

Interesting thoughts, indeed. I would extend the argument to the "homework" expected of all dependent on "remuneration" for work done. There should be some relationship between work and reward. Not only judges, every vigilant citizen need to worry about so called professionals, who do not do their homework, or do not do justice to the "service" they provide. Here, I include politicians and journalists.

ksrao

Replied to Govinda Warrier comment 9 years ago

Adjournments help both judges and lawyers. Judges can appear to be looking deep into the cases and taking time to give well-considered judgments. Lawyers give the impression to their clients that they have taken a lot of trouble attending the court on their behalf. Judges can complain of too much work then, and lawyers can demand more and more money from plaintiffs/defendants.