New York Lawyer
August 4, 2005

Q:
I work with a partner who really doesn�t like hearing unwelcome news. If I point out a weakness in a case, he gets angry with me -- "shoot the messenger." It�s gotten to the point where I hesitate to tell him anything negative because I just don�t like getting the abuse.

Aside from that he�s good to work with, but this is a major drag.

I believe that the best thing for the client is to air all possible issues with the case, even those that may hurt us, but I think he believes that I�m not really on board or that I�m not going along with the program. Is there a way to get my point across without incurring his wrath?

Submit Your Question

Find More Answers

A:

This is a common and yet upsetting problem. Obviously the professional way for lawyers to proceed is to analyze a case with all its strengths and weaknesses, so that you know where you are vulnerable and can protect yourself. Some people, however, believe that they have to maintain a blustery front at all times and never admit any weakness, in themselves, their cases, or anything whatsoever. Put more positively, they may believe that the best way to serve the client is to always emphasize the positive, therefore being a zealous advocate at all times, even with colleagues. This is a mostly stylistic difference that you can minimize (but not do away with entirely) with some adroit phraseology and approaches.

A coward�s way out, yet effective, is to send an email so that he can rant and rave on his own time and you�re not quite so affected. You can�t be blamed for taking this route if he�s an ogre when he hears bad news.

Another approach is to be careful about your word choice and attitude. It could be that you appear a little too dispassionate, as if you aren�t really dedicated to your client�s cause. It�s important to balance a clear-eyed assessment of the client�s case with a certain dedicated zealousness, where you are actively searching for the best way to present your case. Maybe your presentation and approach is a little too detached. Rather than using red-flag phrases like "I think there�s a problem," say instead, "I wanted to review the insurance issue with you," and simply lay out the relevant cases and law without drawing conclusions about the validity of the client�s case. You can also actively search for the most positive view of difficult issues. Give him enough factual information that he can draw whatever negative conclusions there might be about difficulties in the matter.

If you�re feeling more courageous, you can tell him the effect he has on you: "When you get upset after I tell you a problem in a case, I feel like you are angry with me personally." People who are under stress often don�t realize how they come across; they are just feeling frustrated. But their frustration translates as misdirected anger. Sometimes pointing this out to a person can make them a little more self aware. This is hard to do but you can give it a try if, as you say, the person basically is a good supervisor overall.

If you have upwards reviews you can include this information, put as factually as possible. A person like this actually represents a kind of risk to the firm. Inasmuch as you can�t be the only one avoiding his wrath, perhaps he doesn�t get as much valuable information as he needs to make proper decisions about his cases, and is at risk of making an incorrect decision.

Sincerely,
Holly English