Two Basic Types Of Clients: Principled Vs. Pragmatic
It goes without saying that every client’s situation is unique, and there is no such thing as one-size-fits-all representation. That said, humans have a tendency to mistakenly assume that everyone else thinks like they do. Clients fall all over the spectrum in terms of their attitudes and goals in a dispute.
The Principled Client
The principled client is all able the “principle of the thing.” They are willing to pursue justice at all costs. They cannot look at themselves in the mirror each day knowing that they allowed someone else to get away with a perceived injustice. They cannot rest until the bullies are put in their place. They will vindicate their honor. They will not compromise. They will seek the full measure of every available remedy. And they will do all of this no matter what financial, mental, or emotional cost comes with it. On the extreme end of the spectrum, the principled client is prone to throwing good money after bad, and losing sight of the economic realities of the case. The principled client may not realize that perfect justice in our legal system is hard to come by, and that often, there is a good likelihood that at the end of the day, the client may be economically worse off than before they decided to pursue a remedy, even if they win in court. Such a result (i.e., winning, but not really “winning”) is often a symptom of what is known as the “American rule”: by default, prevailing parties in litigation generally pay their own legal fees unless an exception applies. This means that one can wind up spending far more in legal fees and costs than the underlying amount in controversy, and if one cannot recover those fees and costs against the opposing party, then the end result is at best a “pyrrhic victory” (i.e., a win that comes at such a great cost that it is in some ways more like a defeat).
For all of the disadvantages, being a principled client can still have its advantages under certain circumstances. Being consistently principled can signal to opponents that you are willing to go the distance. Sometimes this will make opposing parties more likely to settle because they will not feel like they can call the principled client’s bluff; the opposing party may realize that continuing to fight will only increase their own costs and risks, because no amount of aggression will cause the principled client to back down. Establishing a reputation of being principled can also deter offenses and disputes at the outset. Some companies (and law firms, for that matter) perceive that fighting to the death will benefit them in the long run, by making sure that similarly situated opponents in the future will take them seriously and respect their rights (or at least realize the fight is not worth the cost).
The Pragmatic Client
On the other end of the spectrum is the pragmatic client, whose only real “principle” is pursuing the best economic outcome for the matter at hand. Any injustices already suffered are metaphorical “water under the bridge.” The pragmatic client is less concerned about the past, and more concerned with the question of, “What course of action will put me in the best economic position when this is over?” The pragmatic client will never spend $10,000 to recover $5,000, because that is simply not worth it. They have a more honed ability to take their own emotions out of the equation, and analyze potential compromise as merely transactional- a business decision. They would rather suffer a loss of $1M and call it a day, so long as they accept that it would cost more to seek to recover that loss.
Being a pragmatic client has advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, generally, the pragmatic client is less likely to be dissatisfied with the end result; they have carefully calibrated their resources to match the magnitude of the amount in controversy and chances of recovery. But on the other hand, they can be more vulnerable to pressure tactics from opponents. Any opponent may, for example, seek to coerce a much more favorable settlement by threatening a lawsuit, or threatening time-consuming tactics within existing litigation, such as motions, depositions, subpoenas, inflated damage claims, etc. The pragmatist client faces an awful situation under such circumstances- if they are guided only by the cheapest outcome for the matter at hand, they are beholden to pressure tactics and will always be stuck increasing a payout even when the opposing position is non-meritorious.
The Middle Ground
Nearly all clients fall somewhere in between these two extremes. They realize, at least subconsciously, that either extreme has major pitfalls. Most people want to strike a balance between justice and pragmatism; they want justice, but they have their own internal tolerance level of what resources they are willing to devote to pursue it.
Clients should engage in some introspection at the outset of a dispute, and self-analyze where they believe they fall on the spectrum. They should also discuss it with their counsel, so that the attorney can best tailor the strategy to meet the dispute’s specific circumstances. The lawyers at Beresford Booth have a wealth of experience in counseling and representing clients in civil disputes. We would be happy to assist you. Please contact Beresford Booth at info@beresfordlaw.com or by phone at (425) 776-4100.
