If you have a legal problem and know you need a lawyer, the first question that comes to mind is "Who do I get?" Here are some things to look out for while choosing the right lawyer for you.
1. How do I find a lawyer in the first place?
Your first resource is a lawyer you've used before, so long as you were satisfied with their services. That lawyer may be able to help you with your current problem, or at least refer you to someone who is familiar with that area of the law.
Many state bars or bar associations have referral programs that can help you find a lawyer in your area. Google the name of your state along with the word 'bar' or 'bar association' to find the website, and then see if there is a tab for a referral service within the site. Here's the one for North Carolina:
Word-of-mouth referrals from people you know can also be valuable. Ask your friends and acquaintances if they've ever used a lawyer and how satisfied they were with the results.
Check your local yellow-pages listings as well. Most yellow pages sections have sub-headings within the 'attorney' section, such as 'divorce', 'real estate', criminal and traffic', and the like. Even if they don't handle your type of case, most attorneys keep a list of attorneys to whom they refer cases
3. Is the lawyer familiar with the type of law that covers your problem?
The days of 'one size fits all' lawyers are pretty much over. Law practice has become so complex that even country lawyers have to narrow the scope of their practices. You want someone who is either thoroughly familiar with they type of law needed, or who has the time to catch up very quickly.
4. Should you have to pay the lawyer to 'catch up' on the law?
That depends on the nature of your case. Most lawyers should have a good foundation in the particular area of law, and you shouldn't have to pay for that general education. But resarch that bears more directly on the facts of your particular case may involve billable time. Your lawyer will need to be properly armed with relevant and current case law directly related to your problem.
5. Should you go to a 'TV' lawyer?
Again, this depends on the nature of your case. Most lawyers who advertise heavily on television handle only personal injury, medical malpractice, or other such cases where high-dollar amounts are involved and there are insurance companies available to pay the bill if they win. They generally will have quite a bit of experience and may be the best ones to handle the case if you've been injured by someone else. If not, you might want to go to their website to see if they handle the type of case you have.
6. Will you be able to talk directly to the lawyer?
Many tasks in larger law firms are handled by paralegals and other staff, but you should always have the opportunity to speak directly with the lawyer. Your lawyer should be the one who explains major legal issues to you. On the other hand, costs can be held down when you deal with staff on the day-to-day tasks.
7. Is it important to know the lawyer's win-loss record in court?
You'd probably want to avoid using a lawyer who never wins a case, but the win-loss record doesn't always tell the whole story. A lawyer with a very high win record in court may be one who only takes on cases that look like winners from the start. A lawyer who doesn't have such a high win record might be one who's willing to take on more difficult cases that still might have a chance. Every case that goes to trial has one winner and one loser, which means that half the lawyers who take cases to trial lose. (In a later post, we'll talk about alternatives to trial.)
8. Can you 'fire' a lawyer?
By all means, if you don't feel that your lawyer is doing a good job for you, you can get another lawyer. You should express your dissatisfaction with the lawyer first and see if there's a way to fix the relationship. Also, it's best not to fire the lawyer right before some imoportant date in the course of the trial.
If you do engage another lawyer, be sure that the first one does a proper withdrawal from the case and that you get your file back. In North Carolina, the lawyer's own notes, etc., are not part of the file that must be returned. Also, North Carolina does not allow a lawyer to hold your file 'hostage' if you haven't paid all the fees. You may be liable for fees due to the lawyer, but you can still retrieve your file right away.
I hope these suggestions have been helpful. If you have more questions, please be sure to ask.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Trial Evidence
When a trial is held, both sides want to get in as much evidence as they can that they think will convince a jury to see things their way. Over the years, courts have had to grapple with the issue of what a jury should be able to hear and see, and a key job for the judge in a trial is to determine what should be allowed and what should be kept out.
Eventually, sets of rules were developed to guide judges as they decided issues of evidence. In North Carolina, the rules are written out in Chapter 8C of the General Statutes.
Evidence for a trial might consist of eyewitness testimony, a document or set of documents, three-dimensional objects, audio or video recordings of some kind, or other things that can help tell the story of what happened.
Very often, before a trial, the attorneys will stipulate, or agree, that certain kinds of evidence will be allowed without objection. When there is really no argument that the evidence should be heard or seen, this helps shorten the trial and makes the process smoother for everyone. However, sometimes attorneys for one side or the other would rather that certain critical bits of evidence not be seen by the jury.
If someone objects to any evidence being used at trial, then the judge must use the rules as a guideline to decide whether the jury should see or hear it. One initial threshold for the evidence to pass is whether it is 'relevant' to the issues being tried. In other words, would it make any difference to the outcome of the case whether the evidence is heard or not. Sometimes, the answer is pretty obvious but other times, it can get fairly tricky.
Some other factors a judge must consider when deciding whether to allow evidence include:
a. whether there is some special reason it cannot be allowed (such as sensitive state secrets);
b whether the witness is 'competent' (old enough and mentally alert enough to understand what he or she saw, or really has sufficient personal knowledge, for example);
c. whether the evidence is 'hearsay'. (This is a difficult concept, even for lawyers and judges sometimes, but generally hinges on whether the witness is testifying to what somebody else said.);
d. whether the witness has enough education and experience to talk about technical evidence that is being presented or to give opinions about technical matters;
e. whether a document or object is the genuine article.
Since the evidence a jury gets to see and hear can make or break a case, attorneys often appeal the juge's decision to a higher court. The Court of Appeals must decide first whether the trial judge's decision had a potentially significant effect on the outcome of the trial, and then whether the decision was correct or not.
Eventually, sets of rules were developed to guide judges as they decided issues of evidence. In North Carolina, the rules are written out in Chapter 8C of the General Statutes.
Evidence for a trial might consist of eyewitness testimony, a document or set of documents, three-dimensional objects, audio or video recordings of some kind, or other things that can help tell the story of what happened.
Very often, before a trial, the attorneys will stipulate, or agree, that certain kinds of evidence will be allowed without objection. When there is really no argument that the evidence should be heard or seen, this helps shorten the trial and makes the process smoother for everyone. However, sometimes attorneys for one side or the other would rather that certain critical bits of evidence not be seen by the jury.
If someone objects to any evidence being used at trial, then the judge must use the rules as a guideline to decide whether the jury should see or hear it. One initial threshold for the evidence to pass is whether it is 'relevant' to the issues being tried. In other words, would it make any difference to the outcome of the case whether the evidence is heard or not. Sometimes, the answer is pretty obvious but other times, it can get fairly tricky.
Some other factors a judge must consider when deciding whether to allow evidence include:
a. whether there is some special reason it cannot be allowed (such as sensitive state secrets);
b whether the witness is 'competent' (old enough and mentally alert enough to understand what he or she saw, or really has sufficient personal knowledge, for example);
c. whether the evidence is 'hearsay'. (This is a difficult concept, even for lawyers and judges sometimes, but generally hinges on whether the witness is testifying to what somebody else said.);
d. whether the witness has enough education and experience to talk about technical evidence that is being presented or to give opinions about technical matters;
e. whether a document or object is the genuine article.
Since the evidence a jury gets to see and hear can make or break a case, attorneys often appeal the juge's decision to a higher court. The Court of Appeals must decide first whether the trial judge's decision had a potentially significant effect on the outcome of the trial, and then whether the decision was correct or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)