Avoiding rabbit holes – A short guide for clients
A rabbit hole, in the legal business, may be defined as an unnecessary sojourn into an unrelated matter not connected to the client’s ultimate goal. Lawyers are famous for heading into rabbit holes, sometimes at the behest and with the encouragement of their clients and sometimes of their own accord. The question we raise is how to avoid them since this endeavor can often result in a needless increase in a client’s legal bills and a delay in the satisfactory conclusion of your case.
Rest assured that a well-trained lawyer understands the concept of relevance. This is a subject we begin laboring over starting in our first day of law school. Law school professors routinely grill law students about the facts of cases in terms of what really matters and what does not. Even on the bar exam, the concept of relevance is tested –on multiple-choice tests – the answer is often choice “D” – irrelevant. Therefore, most good lawyers should know what is relevant and what is not.
Lay people, however, sometimes have a tough time understanding relevance. Here are a few examples of things that are generally considered irrelevant in modern litigation.
Whether your adversary has been divorced, been arrested or has been accused of crimes for which they have not been convicted.
Whether your adversary has a “green card” or is residing in the country on an expired visa.
Whether your adversary has been sued in an unrelated matter.
Whether your adversary is not unpopular or is a “bad person”.
These are just a few examples of things that are likely not going to matter to the resolution of your case.
Why, you might ask? Because, most often, the Judge is not going to allow these facts “into evidence” meaning that they are not going to be considered by the Court or the Jury in connection with a decision on your case.
By way of contrast, here are some things that would be important to a resolution of your case.
Whether your adversary has been convicted of a felony.
Whether your adversary has lied under oath to a governmental authority in a matter relating to your case.
Whether your adversary has been sued, repeatedly, on a similar matter and lost.
In other words, a lawsuit is not an opportunity to conduct a referendum on whether someone is a good person or a bad person. The only time that this matters in the legal profession is, perhaps, in the consideration of specific types of cases – civil racketeering, punitive damages or during a death penalty determination.
Staying focused on what really matters in contested litigation may ultimately pay dividends in the form of more reasonable legal bills, a faster and more favorable outcome to your case and a better relationship with your lawyer.