Earning Client's Trust
Hiring a lawyer can be hard because doing so requires that a client place her trust in someone she may not know very well. Lawyers have a reputation for being dishonest, and many people do not have close friendships with them. And so they turn to a stranger in a time of panic and a sensitive situation, and one of the first things the strange lawyer may do is ask for money - and they may not even say how much. No wonder that many people do not enjoy working with lawyers and struggle to trust them sufficiently to enable them to do their job.
I have had to deal with this issue, and so I share some thoughts.
Why should you read this post about earning trust?
The litigation process is already difficult, and the anxiety that comes from working with someone you don't trust will make it much worse.
You’re skeptical that anyone trusts lawyers.
You want to learn my techniques for building trust so you can use them for evil.
.jpg){kind=link}
Creditors Can Only Collect Money the Debtor Has
It is Important to Find a Litigator You Trust
Unlike some kinds of law, litigation is one in which the lawyer has a lot of authority to act on behalf of a client. Without asking for permission, a litigator can sign agreements that bind a client, she can dismiss claims, change deadlines, and make strategic decisions. And so a client must find a lawyer that she is comfortable delegating that kind of authority to.
A lot of clients pick someone and then don’t actually trust the lawyer. This manifests in a few ways. The client may hold important facts back from the lawyer because they are afraid that, if the lawyer knew the truth, she would do something the client doesn’t want. Or the client may not follow the lawyer’s advice because the client believes the lawyer doesn’t share the same values or has her best interests at heart. Or the client may spend a lot of time looking for a new lawyer as the case goes on.
These are all bad for the client: lawyers are always in a better position to help a client if they know all the facts - especially the bad ones. Clients that hold information back from me make my job harder because then I don’t have the time to develop the best response to a bad fact, or I give the client advice I would not have given if I knew the whole truth. Also, if a client hires a lawyer, she should listen to the advice she gets from the lawyer. That does not mean just blindly doing everything the lawyer proposes, but it does mean taking the advice seriously, especially on matters where the lawyer has technical expertise. And while clients should always be open to seeking new perspectives, lawyers trying to take a client’s business may be inclined to criticize a client’s existing strategy, which may disrupt the existing strategy and sow discord, even if the existing strategy is fine.
Ways to Build Trust
In an earlier time, clients spent time in the lawyer’s office, getting to know their advocate face to face. But I do a lot of my work in my office, far away from my clients. The bulk of my work takes place over email, by phone, and behind the scenes, away from client view. So how can clients come to trust me?
One way is through Zoom meetings. I believe that people can build a rapport with me when they see my face rather than just my emails or hearing my disembodied voice. This isn’t because I am particularly handsome, but instead a psychological thing where people feel they know you better if they can put a face to your name.
Another way is through me explaining my thought process. I spend extra time telling clients not just what I think, but why I think it. And I tell them about the alternatives and why I disagree with them. And I try to offer examples of times my observations worked out and I am candid about the alternatives. I am always afraid this may bore clients that may not want to get a long speech about the legal process, but my hope is that my advice and opinion may feel safer if it is less of a mystery and more of a process the client understands.
Similar to this, I try to also let clients know that I understand what they are going through. It may make a lawyer easer to trust if they recognize the emotional challenges that client may be going through because that may mean they have more emotional intelligence, or at least experience with similar issues.
A third way is by telling the client what to expect. For many clients, any legal process is a brand new situation. Many have not been in a lawsuit or legal proceeding before, and so I find that by telling them what will happen, they may trust me more when my predictions come true. But one problem with this is that litigation is, for lack of a better blog name, unpredictable. Accordingly, I can’t tell clients for sure what will happen, I need to caveat a lot of what I say with the possibility that my predictions will be wrong, and sometimes surprises happen. But to the extent I can give them a view of what to expect, I believe people learn over time that I can be trusted to know what is going on.
Another way people build trust is through reputation. Some lawyers are well known for being smart, capable, and honest. Other lawyers may not know the client directly, but come recommended by someone the client already knows and trusts. And some have a lot of online reviews, which enhances their credibility. Personally, I am not a famous lawyer, nor do I practice the kind of law where online reviews are typical (high volume businesses with general consumer audiences, such as personal injury law or trusts and estates law). As a result, I just do my best to be a good lawyer and hope that I build a reputation that way. Also I have this blog, so clients may see that I am the kind of lawyer who knows enough about the law and cares enough about it to have written about it every week for over five years.
Finally, many lawyers take cases on contingency, not just to expand the base of clients to those without big litigation budgets and to possibly share in large payouts, but to earn the trust of a client by telling them that they, too, have skin in the game and a strong personal motivation to get a great result.
Handling a Lack of Trust
Even with the work a lawyer may do to maintain a client’s trust, lawyers and clients are people and that means that relationships of trust naturally falter and break down sometimes.
First, lawyers frequently put things in writing. This way, if there is ever a dispute about what the lawyer said, the lawyer has a record to establish it. This comes up a lot in fee estimates; clients are often upset by how much litigation costs, and so letting the client know in writing what to expect makes it easier to clarify what expectations are later on.
Second, lawyers should try to be sensitive to a lack of trust. Instead of waiting for it to cause a complete breakdown of a relationship, lawyers should listen for it in the client’s voice and address it. They can ask the client how she feels in an effort to identify the root cause of the issue. And they can bring in other lawyers to give the client other perspectives and opinions so the client can be comfortable that the advice she is getting is not just the misguided view of one crank, but either a consensus view or she can feel comfortable choosing a different path proposed by another lawyer.
And third, if the client really no longer trusts a lawyer, it is better to end the relationship on good terms and help the client find someone that can serve her well, rather than wait too long when the client becomes very unhappy and a higher stakes dispute can arise because of choices the lawyer or client made.
major reason why some people don’t pay their debts is that they don’t have the money. True, some people are crooks that want to cheat others. And others are just plain unreasonable. But many people would love to pay their debts, if only they had the money, which they don’t.
Suing people with no money is often useless. Even if you win and get a judgment, the judgment may be worthless if there are no assets to collect. That is why people with no assets are called “judgment proof.” A creditor could wait to see if they obtain assets later on, or garnish their wages, or look to see if they transferred their assets to others. But often, there may not be anything to justify the time and expense of the debt collection process.
To avoid this situation, it is important to make sure that creditors only extend credit to people who are likely to have assets to collect. Many people take collateral and register a secured interest in the collateral to make sure that it can be used to satisfy a judgment. Or they may hold on to specific money or property to make sure that their debts will be paid. Or they may require the debtor to take on insurance or have a guarantor so that, if the debtor defaults, an insurance company or guarantor can pay the amount due.
There are Accelerated Procedures
Readers of this blog know that American lawsuits have numerous procedural steps that may cause litigation to go on for years. But many courts have expedited procedures for debt collection since the issues may be narrower than in many other kinds of disputes.
In New York, a creditor who is collecting on a promissory note may start a lawsuit through a procedure called Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213. Instead of filing a complaint, the petitioner can skip past the answer and discovery phase and go straight to the summary judgment phase, presenting evidence of an unpaid debt, and unless the respondent can demonstrate some dispute of fact, the petitioner may get a judgment.
Also, New York provides a cause of action for “account stated.” Unlike a traditional breach of contract claim, a plaintiff in an account stated claim may allege that she sent an invoice to a customer, who did not timely dispute or pay the invoice. That alone may be sufficient to support a judgment. This is why it is important for customers to promptly challenge invoices they dispute or risk liability for an account stated claim.
Debt Collection Costs Money
Even with accelerated procedures, debt collection costs money. Someone needs to prepare the papers and hire a process server to serve them on the defendant. There may still be court appearances and, even if you get a judgment, someone needs to find the defendant’s assets and execute the judgment.
As a result, it may not make economic sense to sue to collect on small debts. Small claims court exists to help people settle small disputes, but if people do not pay voluntarily, it may cost thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to collect a debt. Spending that much money to collect a few hundred dollars means a net loss for the creditor.
This is why many creditors sell their debts to professional debt collectors, who call and mail people to collect on debts, or who make reports to credit agencies, rather than go straight to court. This is also why people put fee shifting provisions in contracts, making the debtor responsible for the creditor’s costs in collecting the debt.
Large institutions, however, have to collect debts. Utility companies and credit card companies, for example, routinely collect hundreds of dollars from people who do not pay. They make it work economically because they can employe one lawyer to handle a large number of nearly identical claims at once; this way the marginal cost of each is low. People who go to calendar call days at a county court may see the same lawyer representing a utility company appear numerous times, collecting debts from account holders who did not pay their bills.
It Can Get Complicated and the Creditor Itself May Become the Subject of Allegations, Investigations, and Proceedings
Just because a creditor thinks a case is straightforward, however, may not mean that the debtor agrees. The debtor may have a complicated story about why she did not pay: the goods were defective or the creditor engaged in fraud. Claims like these may turn a simple debt collection case into a complicated lawsuit about the debtor’s allegations.
Further, consumer protection statutes govern how debt collectors can collect on debts. Notably, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act governs how debt collectors can speak to debtors and prohibiting abusive and harassing tactics. Violating these laws may subject debt collectors to a government investigation by agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and to private lawsuits.