I need to sue my former employer. I asked around for referrals and found an attorney who specializes in employment law. I spoke with him on the phone and thought he was someone I could work with. However, when I wanted an appointment, he had me schedule with one of the associate attorneys at the practice.
So, what should I do now? It seems like I could have gotten an attorney just as good by picking one at random out of the phone book. What’s the point of getting a recommendation if you’re not going to get that guy? Am I missing something? Should I insist upon the lawyer I was referred to? Is there any way to make sure that I’m getting access to his expertise? Should I look for a new recommendation?
Unless you have a huge case, one that will bring lots of media attention and/or turn into a multi-party suit, you’re almost always going to get an associate instead of The Face of the Firm. The good news is, the associate has the benefit of close contact with TFotF, so it’s not like you’re being hung out to dry, and no attorney worth their salt (and who has lots of positive recommendations) will toss you off to someone they don’t think is good- otherwise it’ll come back to bite them in the ass.
When I signed on with the firm I chose for my suit, I went through a similar referral process and my initial meeting was with TFotF; that was the last time I ever saw or had contact with him. My case was handled by two associates, who were fantastic and probably a LOT easier to get in contact with- any time I had a question/problem, I could get a hold of them that day.
It’s also possible that he wants an associate to do the initial workup, then he’ll take your case over once the ‘grunt’ work has been done.
I’d say don’t insist on him; go meet with the associate and see if they’re someone you click with, but make sure you’re clear on exactly who will be taking your case.
Ask the guy how much of the case he’s gonna handle and ask him to be specific, like what parts of the case. He gonna write the motions? He gonna take it to trial? Is he supervising/directing the work of the associate?
A lot of times the initial work can be covered by an associate with the big gun coming in later.
It’s even cheaper that way cuz you don’t need the big gun to gather the basic information.
But if it’s really going to be just the associate’s case, you should know.
That said a lot of times a recommendation is really for the whole firm. So even if you mainly use an associate, that guy would have learned what to do from the big gun.
the cost is a factor - if you insist that the Big Guy in the firm handle every single thing on your file, be prepared to pay big bucks. By delegating as much as possible to the associate, the Big Guy is saving you money, because associates bill at a lower rate. Also, junior associates tend to be busting their chops to make partner - they normally work hard, and definitely don’t want to screw up on one of the Big Guy’s files.
when I was a junior in a firm, I got files all the time from the more senior lawyers, but I worked under their supervision, going back to them with questions and reports. When the file had advanced to the point where their expertise and skill was needed, they would start to play a more active role.
certainly you should ask exactly how the labour will be divided between the two lawyers; if you’re not happy with that answer, maybe look around.
I can see both sides to this. I have known excellent lawyers will horrible associates. The bad lawyers often get stuck with the petty cases 'cause that is all they are ever gonna get, and the good lawyers take them on because these small cases are all gravy at no cost to the good lawyer.
If you’re gonna sue someone the idea is to win, not to profit. So if you want the best, you pay for it and you can sue to recoup the cost of your suit if you win. If you want the $$$$ look for a lawyer who works on a contingency and will take a percentage of the money.
If someone recommended a lawyer to me and he wasn’t gonna handle my case, it means the recommendation was not worth much. The simple fact you posted this question, to me, means you aren’t happy with the guy or his firm so regardless you need to look elsewhere.
Finally remember if you’re looking for money, there is a HUGE difference, between getting a judgement and collecting that money.
Go back to the person who gave you the referral and ask them for more details. Was it this guy, or the firm, that the referral was really about? If it was the guy then ask how long ago he did the work. The guy may have grown his firm by being personally that good, but as others have said, that’s not necessarily a good indicator of whether the other folks in the firm as as good.
All of this is good advice, but had to add to this part. I’d say the goal of being a plaintiff is to both win AND profit. And where I’m at, at least, it’s hard to get legal fees from a losing defendant ( i do 75-80% defense work and no one has ever gotten me on that). And you should only work a deal with a contingency fee. That put’s a fire under under your lawyer’s butt. A motivating factor. Just beware about letting him talk you into the first settlement offer you get–'cause that could mean they’re just making some quick and easy money off of you–lot’s of firms just scoop up cases and settle for the easy money–make 'em work for the money.
Another point is that in many firms the partners specialize in getting clients, setting overall strategy and doing the important court appearances (or even just some of those). The more nuts and bolts aspects of the litigation are usually handled by the associates.
What that means is that it may take longer (and you may not get as good a result) for the big partner to draft pleadings, discovery requests, routine motions, etc., because that isn’t what he or she does every day.
Ideally, you want an associate you can relate to who can concentrate on your case, while the partner is there for advice, strategy, major court appearances, settlement negotiations and other big picture stuff.