Ethics: Whose Client Is It?

One topic addressed during the final panel session of the recent NCRA Trial Presentation and Certified Legal Video Specialist programs in Phoenix was how to handle it when someone sends you a referral to their client, and that client later asks you to do additional work for them.

It was suggested that the referring firm should be contacted for any subsequent work on that matter. In other words, if that client were to contact you to perform additional work directly related to that case, you should notify the referring firm, and they should then have the option to do as they wish with their client regarding any additional work. Of course, if the client requests you specifically, then that request should be respected and honored if possible by the referring firm as well. With respect to trial presentation services, I would certainly agree with this.

Now, where I have trouble is the example which was shared in which the client then later contacts you directly about a different, unrelated matter. For videographers, apparently the door is open at that point to accept work directly from the client without notifying or involving the original referring firm. If the client was local and the referring firm was not, it was then fair game to take that client from them. I’m not so sure that this is really a good way to do business and maintain a healthy relationship with the referring firm – regardless of location and proximity.

It may be because there are a larger number of videographers throughout the country, coupled with the fact that the client-vendor relationship is rather brief, but I can tell you that this would never fly in the trial presentation community. You would have only one opportunity to steal a client, and you would probably never again get called for additional work from the referring firm. I don’t know how small and close the videographer community really is, but I can tell you that most everyone in the trial presentation business knows who most everyone else is, and whether they have ever taken someone else’s client. In my opinion, this would apply to marketing to co-counsel or even opposing counsel while working on behalf of a referring firm. As a subcontractor, you are not there to represent yourself, but rather the prime contactor who referred you in the first place.

Although the client-vendor relationship is a stronger factor in trial presentation, I would suggest that it may be a good idea for videographers to consider whose client it was in the first place, and whether snapping up a little extra work now could cost you much more later. If there is a question as to whether it is the right thing to do, the safe and honorable thing to do would be to contact the referring firm. Although you may be losing out on a few quick dollars in doing so, the long-term effect can be far more valuable. We are all only as good as our reputation.

Ted Brooks, President
Litigation-Tech LLC
"Enhancing the Art of Communication"
Member, American Society of Trial Consultants
Certified inData TrialDirector Trainer
415-291-9900 San Francisco
213-798-6608 Los Angeles
http://www.litigationtech.com/
tbrooks@litigationtech.com
http://trial-technology.blogspot.com/

WINNER: LAW TECHNOLOGY NEWS AWARD FOR MOST INNOVATIVE USE OF TECHNOLOGY DURING A TRIAL

Los Angeles Dodgers Divorce Trial (Technology)

12/7/2010 UPDATE: TEAM JAMIE GETS THE "W"

No hesitation in adding this $450 MM high-profile win to my résumé, working with David Boies, Dennis Wasser, Bruce Cooperman, Mike Kump, and the rest of Team Jamie. Litigation-Tech provided trial presentation consulting, evidence management (TrialDirector databases), and graphics. This case involved long hours and very hard teamwork – a simple formula that I’ve consistently experienced in any big trial win. Congratulations and Happy Holidays, Jamie!

See the L.A. Times article: Judge rules in favor of Jamie McCourt in Dodgers ownership struggle

While I’m not at liberty to offer any inside information, I will say that working with the likes of David Boies and Jim Miller (Boies, Schiller & Flexner), Dennis Wasser and Bruce Cooperman (Wasser, Cooperman & Carter), Michael Kump (Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert), and the rest of Jamie McCourt’s dream-team is a real treat.

Ross Baron (formerly with Merrill) and I were contacted by Wasser Cooperman paralegal Mary Yates and subsequently retained to provide evidence management, war room support and trial presentation. Ross has been handling most of the prep, while I have been in the “hot seat” in court during the trial. This is an incredibly interesting trial, with an incredibly talented and dedicated team of professionals.

With one week in the books, we have a little pause in the action until the trial resumes, so I wanted to at least post something on the blawg, as it has been a few weeks. It’s funny how work can quickly push lesser priorities off the road.

I will not discuss the case, but I will share an interesting experience regarding trial presentation and technology. Once the doors are opened to the courtroom, the proceedings get rolling quickly. Typically, we might have at least 30 minutes or so to get everything online and test the system. On Wednesday, the doors opened at 1:30 after lunch, and Boies resumed his examination of Frank McCourt by 1:35. I had a little “issue” with my trial presentation laptop (which I had brought with me during lunch), causing me to jump to my backup laptop (which had remained in the courtroom, ready to go) and flip the switch to quickly bring up the requested exhibit. Fortunately, I had the backup in place (which, by the way, is an excellent example of why we always have backup systems in court). There is simply no good excuse for failure in this business – especially in high-profile matters. After a few stressful moments, I was able to bring the primary laptop back online, and take a deep sigh of relief. The best part of this is that nobody else even realized that anything had gone wrong (except perhaps those who were sitting nearby). While some smaller cases might allow counsel to handle their own technology, there is certainly a limit with respect to the inherent risks in dealing with it. That stated, it is generally a better idea for an attorney to focus on examining the witness and let someone else worry about the presentation of exhibits.

Incorporating technology into your trial presentation can help significantly in speeding up the pace of the presentation of evidence, since there is no delay in making sure everyone is on the same page – and this is even more important in a bench trial. Exhibits are displayed immediately as they are identified on the record during a bench trial (and, of course once authenticated and/or admitted into evidence in a jury trial). This is one reason successful law firms and their clients insist on bringing all available tools and resources to trial.

Electronic evidence presentation can also help in getting the message out visually, allowing counsel to simply call out an exhibit number and page, and then mention for the record where the witness should look on that page. The exhibit is then brought to life by zooming in and highlighting key text using TrialDirector or similar software. This is particularly effective when discussing documents with the witness, which might otherwise by extremely dull and boring to the observer.

While trial presentation technology may not be able to turn a bad case into a good one, it can certainly help in getting the evidence presented in the most efficient and effective manner possible.

For additional news and views about this case, check out http://www.dodgerdivorce.com/, http://www.laweekly.com/search/index?keywords=mccourt&x=0&y=0, and, of course, most any local L.A. news source.

Ted Brooks, President
Litigation-Tech LLC
"Enhancing the Art of Communication" Member, American Society of Trial Consultants
Certified inData TrialDirector Trainer
415-291-9900  San Francisco

213-798-6608 Los Angeles
http://www.litigationtech.com/
tbrooks@litigationtech.com

http://trial-technology.blogspot.com/
WINNER: LAW TECHNOLOGY NEWS AWARD FOR MOST INNOVATIVE USE OF TECHNOLOGY DURING A TRIAL

Portable Law Office Equipment: The Printer

Each day during trial, I bring not only my laptop(s), but I am also prepared to print, scan, and perform a variety of other essential functions – all in court. In this article, I will offer a brief review of the Canon PIXMA iP100 printer.

I have used the HP 450 and 460 portable printers, and was about to purchase a new HP 470 printer, when I decided to do a little bit of research before dropping another $250 or so on the latest model. The primary reason for doing this was that I’ve actually purchased two or three 450’s and one 460 – and NONE OF THEM WORK! Actually, the reason I bought the 460 a couple of years ago was because the 450’s would do nothing more than pass a blank page through with any print command – even a print-test page. It appears that the drivers just won’t work any longer. I have no idea why, nor do I care to waste more of my time attempting to figure out what happened and why. According to the reviews I read, it seems that I am only one in a multitude of others with the same issue. Not good.

The HP 460 apparently suffered from some sort of traumatic injury (did I mention I carry these things in my rolling carry-on?) during my daily walks to court. All it does now is shake and rattle a bit, and then lights up to indicate it’s having a paper feed issue. Not good.

So, I looked at alternatives, and the Canon PIXMA iP100 seemed to be the next logical choice. I couldn’t really find much in the way of reviews, which I now guess is a good thing. Did I test this thing before going to court? You bet I did.

During my last trial (one month in the U.S. District Court in S.F.), I hauled in the trusty new Canon in case we would need to print exhibits, outlines, and emails (all of which we did) in court. This little printer performed flawlessly. It (like the HP) is a little noisy for use during the trial, and is best used during a break. A battery pack and Bluetooth capability are also available, although I’m sticking with the USB.

This printer doesn’t actually look all that durable, as it is made of lightweight plastic, but the design appears to work. It is a little smaller than the HP also, which is another benefit. The paper feeder also works better and holds more paper. I’m not sure how the ink will hold out yet, but I’ve made it through one trial without changing cartridges.

The bottom line on the Canon PIXMA iP100 is that I would highly recommend it to anyone needing a small, lightweight and portable printer that will actually work when you need it. At about $250 list (about the same as the HP), it is well worth the money spent.

Ted Brooks, President
Litigation-Tech LLC
"Enhancing the Art of Communication" Member, American Society of Trial Consultants
Certified inData TrialDirector Trainer
415-291-9900  San Francisco

213-798-6608 Los Angeles
www.litigationtech.com
tbrooks@litigationtech.com

http://trial-technology.blogspot.com/
WINNER: LAW TECHNOLOGY NEWS AWARD FOR MOST INNOVATIVE USE OF TECHNOLOGY DURING A TRIAL