As traditional lawyers, we would say that the giving of legal advice is what we do, along with advocating for our client's stated position. Our education and training in the reading and interpretation of laws and cases gives us power and authority over our clients, because we know something big and mysterious that they don't. It is part of our aura and our mystery, and as traditional lawyers we use it to our advantage.
What is legal advice anyway? It is a codified opinion. It's what legislators think their constituents want, compromises they think they can pass. It's a predictor of what might happen if a judge made a decision. It is a demonstration of the fluidity of the law. It demonstrates the futility of applying hard and fast rules to changing facts.
As traditional lawyers, we don't necessarily want our clients to know all of this because it takes away some of the law's mystique. My question is why? Why would we not want our clients to know the law, to have a frame of reference for decision-making, to know the parameters of their options? Why is it not OK to know that different lawyers, and different judges will disagree on the application of the law to the facts? Do we really think that people won't hire us if they knew the truth? If that's the case, then we really aren't providing much value to our clients. There is a value to our talking to our clients about the law because it is a realm in which we are comfortable and our clients are not. Its usefulness is not just in the providing of the information but also the discussion with the client that ensues in which we help the client test options against the legal parameters. It foments collaborative dialogue between the clients, the client and their lawyer and the lawyers themselves. It is a debate that improves the delivery of legal services and redefines what it means to give legal advice.
No comments:
Post a Comment