Focusing on the Relevant Issues
When a client comes to me for help, they often do not know the specific legal theories that may entitle them to relief. They usually know someone did something wrong and they want someone to do something about it. But courts do not address every wrong-seeming thing, and laws can dictate which people are liable for misconduct and which people are not. As a result, a lawyer must focus her client’s claims to the relevant facts and the relevant parties.
Why should you read this post about focusing on relevant issues?
You want to know why your lawyer isn’t discussing facts you think are important.
You’d like a tightly edited, on-topic post instead of a lengthy, rambling one that touches on a kitchen sink full of things that bother the author.
It has a science picture.
Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtration#/media/File:Hot_FIltration.jpg
A Lawyer’s Duty to Tell the Client’s Story
To some extent, the job of a litigator is to tell the client’s story. A client approaches an attorney because they have a story to tell that, they believe, should persuade a judge or a jury or an adversary to give them some relief. And instead of telling the story themselves, the client believes the lawyer can articulate the story better.
But part of telling any story is editing (a message ironically shared on a sporadically-edited blog). And just like the first draft of a movie may have irrelevant B plots or scenes that drag on too long, so too many cases involve irrelevant facts or contentions that detract from the overall story that may support the client’s case.
This presents a conflict: a client may think certain facts are important, and the lawyer has an obligation to tell the client’s story. But at the same time, the lawyer wants to present the story that has the best chance of achieving the client’s desired outcome, and that often means cutting irrelevant facts and claims and focusing on facts and claims that the client may not recognize as important.
For example, a client may tell her lawyer about a boss who harassed her and also has bad hygiene. Even if the bad hygiene is very notable to the client, the lawyer may focus on the harassment because that aspect of the story is the one that best fits a cognizable legal claim. Moreover, the lawyer may emphasize facts that connect the employer to the employee’s home state so that she can assert personal jurisdiction over the employer, even if those facts do not seem important to the client.
Persuading the Court
Most judges have a heavy caseload and limited time to dedicate to each matter. As a result, lawyers have to make the most of the limited attention they may get from the court. So it is often a good idea for lawyers to present the court with a small set of important facts, instead of hundreds of pages of some-relevant some-not-relevant facts.
This is especially true because litigators have to connect the facts to a legal theory to explain why their client is entitled to relief. It is their job to say the elements of a cause of action are A, B, and C, and in this case, A, B, and C are true. The court will rarely pour through a hundred facts and identify which facts align with which possible legal theories.
As a result, lawyers will often focus their presentations to the relevant facts to make it clear that the elements of their claims are met. Adding irrelevant facts may distract the court from the relevant facts.
Exceptions Often Apply
Litigators may, however, add facts beyond the minimum facts necessary to support their case. This is generally for two reasons.
First, judges and juries aren’t robots. They are sympathetic to innocent people who are wronged by bad actors and may give the benefit of the doubt to a party when it looks like the circumstances warrant compassion. As a result, lawyers may add facts to their pleadings that make their client look good and their adversary look bad.
And second, most lawsuits involve the application of rules that are set by higher courts and by statutes. But most rules have exceptions or, at least, leave open the possibility for exceptions. Additional facts may give a party ammunition to argue that a rule should not apply to them because of extenuating circumstances. For example, the law may prohibit people from driving cars in a public park. But a defendant being prosecuted for that law may argue that she only drove in the park to bring medical supplies to someone who was injured in the park. Even if no exception currently exists that applies, the defendant may use those facts to argue that an exception to the law in her case should be made.