Factors such as a lawyer's gender, age, years of experience, and
litigation experience tended to have little or no effect on to what extent they relied on these faulty strategies.
Not exact matches
If anything, the momentum and
experience of
litigation will
tend to heighten client expectations, not dampen them.
In my
experience as both litigator and
litigation consultant, I've found that during trial juries
tend to find relatively few facts very interesting and «important» and then base the entirety of their decision in the jury room on those few facts.
Although these principals are pretty in keeping with general
litigation principles, lawyers
tend to forget them when dealing with
experienced witnesses with special credentials whom the lawyer is paying to testify.
A typical attorney who self - identifies as an «employee rights» attorney will usually have much more
experience (as compared to the typical attorney identified as an «employment attorney» or an «employer defense» attorney) with: (1) representing workers on a contingency - fee basis (where no fee is paid unless the case wins or settles) and offering risk - sharing fee arrangements generally; (2) playing offense, so to speak — analyzing, identifying and prosecuting specific legal violations (whereas employer - side attorneys
tend to have more
experience in broader - stroke compliance / employer - training matters, and reactive work in
litigation that responds to claims they are presented); and (3) identifying with the «little guy» who has been harmed by a larger opponent, often having well - tested strategies that have worked while representing individuals against large organizations and wind up with good case results.