Once again I've read in a magazine marketing divorce lawyers and services, yet another "Questions to Ask a Prospective Lawyer" article starting
with "Do you practice family law exclusively, and if not, what percentage of your practice is family law?" It's a nice, comforting, easily quantifiable checklist item for the neophyte at lawyer-hiring.
The self-serving "advice" followed a section that told the reader that "a lawyer who specializes in taxation isn't going to be much help to you." You might want to
~ read this ~ if you hear that from a family lawyer. One of the best divorce lawyers I know also has a thriving practice in personal injury litigation. Another spends time doing employment law.
Multiple areas of practice do come with experience, and can be quite helpful when that "seamless web" that is the law bleeds into other issues.
The article did also state that
the selected lawyer should have a "lot of experience" but (perhaps because some of its advertisers don't) "if fresh out of law school, make sure he has an experienced mentor". Other unhelpful criteria posited were to make sure the lawyer "is a skilled negotiator", is "firm", is "reasonable", and is "totally candid".
How is a consumer to know, based on a cold interview with an unknown lawyer,
whether the lawyer is a "skilled negotiator" or "has an experienced mentor" (who actually oversees his work?) or is being candid (other than that the lawyer says he is)? He can't know. Not this way.
What do executives in larger companies do when they need to hire a lawyer? Do they just ask someone from the sales or accounting department to call around?
Do they pick out prospective interviewees from ads in a magazine that makes its money from advertising? Usually, no. These sophisticated consumers go first to their own well-known trusted corporate counsel. That's right -- they actually have a lawyer, one who is experienced in hiring and assessing the performance of other lawyers (and their bills) to do it.
The principle is not much different
from an individual's asking his long-time family physician or dentist who he would suggest -- or use himself -- as a medical or dental specialist. In fact, even recommendations from other clients or patients who have used a particular professional, albeit this method can have its drawbacks,
still is a better way to gather information about prospective professionals than an interview prompted by magazine or website advertising. (This isn't mentioned, of course, in
the filler article of the magazine that makes its money from advertising).
A good friend of mine, a brilliant pediatric ear/nose/throat surgeon (that's three specialties, by the way), tells his students a humbling cautionary tale about the potential dangers of specialist arrogance and bias. He was called by a child's parents to the hospital for an emergency.
A toddler had inhaled a jelly bean up his nose, and now couldn't breathe, and was turning blue. While the ENT professor frantically and unsuccessfully searched the child's throat, sinus and head cavities for the missing
bean, an emergency room generalist grabbed the attention of a cardio-pulmonary physician who had happened into the hospital. With this assist, the errant bean was found and extracted just in time -- from the child's lung.
When I have time, I will add a few more words about how to maximize the chances that you've hired the right lawyer for your particular situation and needs, but for now I'll just leave you with this:
don't mistake a one-trick pony for special skill. And be careful about advice in magazines that earn their money by selling advertising -- they're not in the business of working for you.
The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertising.
Before you decide, ask us for free written information about our qualifications and experience.
