Subscribe in a reader

ISSAQUAH LAW GROUP

Issaquah Law Group: Experienced Counsel; Client Focus

PHILOSOPHY: Formed in 2014, Issaquah Law Group is a law firm with one focus: providing businesses and insurers with high quality legal representation with the responsiveness of a smaller firm. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built upon clear and consistent communication. 

LITIGATION: We work closely with our clients to fully and accurately understand their goals, work collaboratively to formulate specific legal strategies, and execute the agreed plan of action utilizing methods most likely to result in the efficient and effective resolution of the matter. ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals in the areas of personal injury and wrongful death, product liability, commercial general liability, labor & employment, construction litigation, and catastrophic losses due to fire and explosion.

BUSINESS LAW: Rarely is the path from point A to point B a straight line, so our role in a business law practice is to find alternatives, devise workable strategies, and keep your business ideas, goals and objectives moving toward realization. ILG’s business attorneys help clients achieve their goals with respect to business formation, intellectual property, labor and employment, CAN-SPAM, copyright and trademark

COMMUNITY: In addition, the Lawyers at Issaquah Law Group remain active in the legal and civic community. A core commitment of our Issaquah Attorneys is community service. Our attorneys' civic involvement includes the King County Civil Rights Commission; the City of Issaquah Planning Policy Commission; the Northwest Screenwriters Guild, service as a pro tem judge. We live and work in the Pacific Northwest, and we aim to make it a better place.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

Disparities in Civil Representation Favor Civil Defendants

An article came out in the Stanford Law Review recently which found that judges do in fact judge the quality of representation. Who do you think it favors? The parties of power of course. I don't mean political parties, but rather the corporations on the civil side and the prosecutors on the criminal side.

Disparities in civil cases.
The civil areas where federal trial judges saw the greatest disparity were civil rights and personal injury/malpractice. When there was a disparity, the defendant had better representation. State judges saw the greatest disparities in family law and personal injury/malpractice. Again, when there was a disparity in the tort cases, it was generally the defense that had the advantage.

Judges said that intellectual property and commercial litigation cases seldom had a great disparity between the sides' lawyers. These lawyers were rated between "good" and "excellent" -- i.e., at the top of the scale.

HT to Trial Ad for the pointer.

Now, this says a couple things to me:

1) We have GOT to do a better job of prepping out cases. Just like big firms, we have a huge workload. But in our big cases, we need to take the time to prepare just as hard as they do, just as many hours logged into the specific case, not just the overall caseload. I see far too often, attorneys on the defensive in times where they should have been on the offensive. I realize there are pragmatics as to income flow, but if we worked our good cases just as much as they did, we'd be much better set for defeating a summary judgment and much better set for trial. I saw Bob Dawson at trial recently, and remember just being flabberghasted at how well prepared he was. I make every effort on even my small trials to be set for any possible contingency, but I never know my cases as well as I'd like, I never know the medical records as well as I'd like, I never have as much time or thought into my crosses and direct as I'd like, etc., etc. I really think a lot of that has to do with always wanting to be better. But the fact of the matter is, if they can legitimately bill it, they will, and spend much more time on the case than we can (at least in the larger cases...we all know they often fall short in the smaller cases).

2) Their is NO need for tort reform, we already have an uphill battle. Frivolous claims will be dismissed outright. Many non-frivolous claims will be dismissed due to the inequities involved.

Subscribe in a reader