Quote:
Originally posted by On n'a qu'une vie
From the LT article I posted above
<<"Sophisticated clients understand that the time to spend money is upfront, not down the road when you're in litigation," says Foley. >>
Does anyone really believe this statement? Or believe that clients believe this statement, sophisticated or otherwise?
|
Clients never believed they should spend money on litigation, either to head it off or to fight it. It's always "why us?" I'm sure there's a sophisticated client out there who realizes this, perhaps particularly in the patent area (an area I'm not familiar with, but one that seems particularly ripe for litigation).
I handled a case involving what was basically a contract dispute (although with lots of regulatory bullshit woven in). Anyway, the parties clearly had both tried to snooker the other on the language, and had different views of what several key terms meant (I suppose that describes nearly all contract litigation). They eventually reached settlement, where they would rewrite the contract. Of course, the new contract was even more covoluted, and while putting it together I was certain we'd be back in two years relitigating the new contract . . . amazing. The parties should have just walked away from each other, and paid some money.
