3 ms·

The correct procedures are why you (and the OP) need a lawyer in the mix. Strategic direction, though, isn't something that has a correct mechanism. That stra

The correct procedures are why you (and the OP) need a lawyer in the mix. Strategic direction, though, isn't something that has a correct mechanism. That strategic direction can include things like how hard you want to fight on each motion and if/when you want to try and settle and for how much. Said another way, if you approach a plumber with "I need more hot water" they'll probably try and sell you an industrial tankless water heater with a nice markup. However, if you tell them "I want you to install this water heater that I purchased" then they'll do the work to get it fit in and setup. 1 option will cost you $1000s of dollars more. There is still a correct way to install water heaters, but the stuff related to whether or not you need a new water heater and what kind shouldn't be left up to the plumber. The law is the same way. If you just tell a lawyer "I'm being sued, help me" they can justify putting any amount of time researching case law for your case. Taking a more active role, though, and saying "this is how I want you to respond to that motion" will shortcut a lot of that research time. They'll still have to do some work to validate you aren't giving them garbage to file. And of course they are still expected to follow all the local rules. But the actual billable hours will be massively reduced because they aren't doing nearly as much research.

mustache_kimono 1y ago
> Taking a more active role, though, and saying "this is how I want you to respond to that motion" will shortcut a lot of that research time. Taken literally however "this is how I want you to respond to that motion" could be wildly reckless. I think your discussion above amounts to equivocation on the word "strategy". It's fine to set business "strategy". Telling an attorney what should literally be in his response to a motion, ignores all his/her knowledge about motion practice, the law, and evidence which will be relevant to the question. Like -- this is a 12(b)(6) motion, not a motion for summary judgment. We are questioning the sufficiency of the claim on the page, not whether there are genuine issues of material fact. Business strategy is "don't spend gobs of money on this motion" not "file what I tell you."
- cogman10 1y ago
  > could be wildly reckless Could be, which is why you have a lawyer to put guiderails on and give a "are you sure you want to go down this path?". > Telling an attorney what should literally be in his response to a motion, ignores all his/her knowledge about motion practice, the law, and evidence which will be relevant to the question. No, because before a lawyer files the response they have to (well, they should) both read, understand, and verify that it is in fact a valid response to file. Not doing so can get them sanctioned. It's also their job to bring up to the client "Look, I know you want to file this but in my experience you'd really be better served if you did this instead".
  - mustache_kimono 1y ago
    > Could be, which is why you have a lawyer to put guiderails on and give a "are you sure you want to go down this path?". Guardrails are the wrong way to think about the relationship. The attorney is not your mother and you are not a toddler. The attorney is not there to figure out the 1000s of different ways for you not to get hurt, when you present them with a bogus response. Why? Because verifying the 1000s of ways for you not to get hurt is often a waste of time which will cost you time and money itself. A better way to think of the relationship is a partnership. A: I feel business needs to do X. B: I think X with a few addendums stands a better chance of success, but will cost a few dozen deep research hours, which likely can't be handled by AI. A: Can you cap my cost at $Z? B: Done. > No, because before a lawyer files the response they have to (well, they should) both read, understand, and verify that it is in fact a valid response to file. Not doing so can get them sanctioned. Simply being formally valid is not enough. Most clients want to have a reasonable chance of success? Moreover, attorneys like doctors, shouldn't simply be considered instruments of your desires. Especially in litigation contexts where they have other independent duties to fulfill. Attorneys, for instance, are not allowed to simply ignore adverse precedent. A: The AI said X and Y and Z. B: That's fine, but we need to be sure we have addressed the relevant case law in this jurisdiction. A: The AI was last updated a week ago. B: Afraid we have to a deeper search than Claude.
    - cogman10 1y ago
      > The attorney is not there to figure out the 1000s of different ways for you not to get hurt, when you present them with a bogus response. They are, because they are a partner with you in law. Part of their job is working with you and looking out for your best interests. > Because verifying the 1000s of ways for you not to get hurt is often a waste of time which will cost you time and money itself. That verification is what you are shortcutting but also not what you are after. You want their experience to be able to say whether or not a path is good. The fact is, there's no 1 right way to do things and what you really want is "is this reasonable". > Most clients want to have a reasonable chance of success? Most clients want to pay the least amount of money possible, including legal fees (In civil cases). "Success" isn't really measurable beyond "will this bankrupt me". There's also not a lot of guarantees that this motion or that motion will ultimately drive down the cost of the case. There are literally thousands of motions that get field especially when talking about corporate lawsuits.
ryandrake 1y ago
> However, if you tell them "I want you to install this water heater that I purchased" then they'll do the work to get it fit in and setup. Yea, but plumbers tend to hate this. Electricians and HVAC pros also don't like it when you sit in the driver's seat. Car mechanics, too. When you've already done the diagnosis, and you just want them to install this OEM fuel pump which you've already purchased. Some mechanics will even refuse the job. They want to pump their bills with hours of diagnosis and their parts markup. Tradesmen have a process they want you to go through that maximizes their revenue.
- robocat 1y ago
  I disagree with your sweeping statements. Tradies fear crappy clients, but if you're pleasant to work with and you pay them fairly and you don't shit on them then you can find good tradies that will work closely with you. Pick your tradie, to suit your requirements, and be a great PM and pay for quality work. I've been the Purchaser, Project Manager and often the apprentice/gofer too (saving myself many many billable hours of cost on each job). The last three multi-thousand tradie jobs (builder, plumber, electrician) I've had deep interaction with the tradie and I am a repeated client with significant different jobs with each. Properly respect the person, be ultra-polite if you want to question how anything is done. Never micro-manage or be an overdemanding perfectionist and accept normal mistakes. They are the experts but they sometimes get things wrong. You are an apprentice trying to learn, but you can be firm with requirements and watch for gross mistakes. I often get involved with other tradies or professionals too (recently car electrical, car mechanical, medical specialists, fencer). Sometimes to save money, sometimes to get job done better. If you want to be OCD about a job, then pick an OCD tradie and be prepared to pay for your perfectionism. I'm usually more cowboy. One friend is a tiler, and he likes delivering amazing jobs (but he costs somewhat more per hour than average). > and you just want them to install this OEM fuel pump which you've already purchased Recently just done similar with my mechanic (supplied wheel studs and they've told me where to get replacement handbrake cable which they'll fit), and I did this with my electrician (used my own reels of cable) and I wish I did this with my plumber (because I would have made a better choice of fitting than they did). For cheaper jobs perhaps pay them for the lost income (trade discount or trade markups are usually known, or you can just ask). Actually did this with a fuel pump with the second hand car dealer when they had to fix under warrantee (helped simplify things to get their mechanic to fix car while I waited). Context: I'm in New Zealand and I'm in my 50s. On-topic: when you're a founder you need to hone the skill of working with professionals (e.g. lawyers) and getting them to do work right. My take on being a founder is that you are ignorant about everything but you have to get it done anyway: you often have to become your own expert and just do it (your meta-skills are most relevant). Advisors/mentors often lack context or have their own agendas, so you just gotta get ahead regardless of your ignorance. Learning how to listen to advice, pick the value out, and throw away the dross is just hard. Being submissive or falling for status plays is ruinous.

mustache_kimono 1y ago

> Taking a more active role, though, and saying "this is how I want you to respond to that motion" will shortcut a lot of that research time. Taken literally however "this is how I want you to respond to that motion" could be wildly reckless. I think your discussion above amounts to equivocation on the word "strategy". It's fine to set business "strategy". Telling an attorney what should literally be in his response to a motion, ignores all his/her knowledge about motion practice, the law, and evidence which will be relevant to the question. Like -- this is a 12(b)(6) motion, not a motion for summary judgment. We are questioning the sufficiency of the claim on the page, not whether there are genuine issues of material fact. Business strategy is "don't spend gobs of money on this motion" not "file what I tell you."

cogman10 1y ago
> could be wildly reckless Could be, which is why you have a lawyer to put guiderails on and give a "are you sure you want to go down this path?". > Telling an attorney what should literally be in his response to a motion, ignores all his/her knowledge about motion practice, the law, and evidence which will be relevant to the question. No, because before a lawyer files the response they have to (well, they should) both read, understand, and verify that it is in fact a valid response to file. Not doing so can get them sanctioned. It's also their job to bring up to the client "Look, I know you want to file this but in my experience you'd really be better served if you did this instead".
- mustache_kimono 1y ago
  > Could be, which is why you have a lawyer to put guiderails on and give a "are you sure you want to go down this path?". Guardrails are the wrong way to think about the relationship. The attorney is not your mother and you are not a toddler. The attorney is not there to figure out the 1000s of different ways for you not to get hurt, when you present them with a bogus response. Why? Because verifying the 1000s of ways for you not to get hurt is often a waste of time which will cost you time and money itself. A better way to think of the relationship is a partnership. A: I feel business needs to do X. B: I think X with a few addendums stands a better chance of success, but will cost a few dozen deep research hours, which likely can't be handled by AI. A: Can you cap my cost at $Z? B: Done. > No, because before a lawyer files the response they have to (well, they should) both read, understand, and verify that it is in fact a valid response to file. Not doing so can get them sanctioned. Simply being formally valid is not enough. Most clients want to have a reasonable chance of success? Moreover, attorneys like doctors, shouldn't simply be considered instruments of your desires. Especially in litigation contexts where they have other independent duties to fulfill. Attorneys, for instance, are not allowed to simply ignore adverse precedent. A: The AI said X and Y and Z. B: That's fine, but we need to be sure we have addressed the relevant case law in this jurisdiction. A: The AI was last updated a week ago. B: Afraid we have to a deeper search than Claude.
  - cogman10 1y ago
    > The attorney is not there to figure out the 1000s of different ways for you not to get hurt, when you present them with a bogus response. They are, because they are a partner with you in law. Part of their job is working with you and looking out for your best interests. > Because verifying the 1000s of ways for you not to get hurt is often a waste of time which will cost you time and money itself. That verification is what you are shortcutting but also not what you are after. You want their experience to be able to say whether or not a path is good. The fact is, there's no 1 right way to do things and what you really want is "is this reasonable". > Most clients want to have a reasonable chance of success? Most clients want to pay the least amount of money possible, including legal fees (In civil cases). "Success" isn't really measurable beyond "will this bankrupt me". There's also not a lot of guarantees that this motion or that motion will ultimately drive down the cost of the case. There are literally thousands of motions that get field especially when talking about corporate lawsuits.

ryandrake 1y ago

> However, if you tell them "I want you to install this water heater that I purchased" then they'll do the work to get it fit in and setup. Yea, but plumbers tend to hate this. Electricians and HVAC pros also don't like it when you sit in the driver's seat. Car mechanics, too. When you've already done the diagnosis, and you just want them to install this OEM fuel pump which you've already purchased. Some mechanics will even refuse the job. They want to pump their bills with hours of diagnosis and their parts markup. Tradesmen have a process they want you to go through that maximizes their revenue.

robocat 1y ago
I disagree with your sweeping statements. Tradies fear crappy clients, but if you're pleasant to work with and you pay them fairly and you don't shit on them then you can find good tradies that will work closely with you. Pick your tradie, to suit your requirements, and be a great PM and pay for quality work. I've been the Purchaser, Project Manager and often the apprentice/gofer too (saving myself many many billable hours of cost on each job). The last three multi-thousand tradie jobs (builder, plumber, electrician) I've had deep interaction with the tradie and I am a repeated client with significant different jobs with each. Properly respect the person, be ultra-polite if you want to question how anything is done. Never micro-manage or be an overdemanding perfectionist and accept normal mistakes. They are the experts but they sometimes get things wrong. You are an apprentice trying to learn, but you can be firm with requirements and watch for gross mistakes. I often get involved with other tradies or professionals too (recently car electrical, car mechanical, medical specialists, fencer). Sometimes to save money, sometimes to get job done better. If you want to be OCD about a job, then pick an OCD tradie and be prepared to pay for your perfectionism. I'm usually more cowboy. One friend is a tiler, and he likes delivering amazing jobs (but he costs somewhat more per hour than average). > and you just want them to install this OEM fuel pump which you've already purchased Recently just done similar with my mechanic (supplied wheel studs and they've told me where to get replacement handbrake cable which they'll fit), and I did this with my electrician (used my own reels of cable) and I wish I did this with my plumber (because I would have made a better choice of fitting than they did). For cheaper jobs perhaps pay them for the lost income (trade discount or trade markups are usually known, or you can just ask). Actually did this with a fuel pump with the second hand car dealer when they had to fix under warrantee (helped simplify things to get their mechanic to fix car while I waited). Context: I'm in New Zealand and I'm in my 50s. On-topic: when you're a founder you need to hone the skill of working with professionals (e.g. lawyers) and getting them to do work right. My take on being a founder is that you are ignorant about everything but you have to get it done anyway: you often have to become your own expert and just do it (your meta-skills are most relevant). Advisors/mentors often lack context or have their own agendas, so you just gotta get ahead regardless of your ignorance. Learning how to listen to advice, pick the value out, and throw away the dross is just hard. Being submissive or falling for status plays is ruinous.