Last week, I published an article about my "Three Meeting Rule" that has been very well received, and I am very pleased with the positive feedback I have received about it. I would like to elaborate a bit about this "rule" from my observations over the fifteen years I’ve been practicing in the Family Court.
The information disclosed by the client at these meetings usually goes like this:
- What the client wants to tell you. During the first meeting, most clients have no problem telling you about their best parts (all the "wonderful" things they have done) and their spouse’s worst parts (all the "horrible" things that he/she did).
- How the client explains away the other side’s allegations. Once clients are confronted with the other party’s version of the facts (i.e., the "rest of the story"), they begin to come up with various explanations to attempt to reconcile the inevitable discrepancies. These discussions often include combinations of "she’s lying" or "that never happened".
- What the client needs to tell you. After a little time passes and the client has some time to reflect, reality sets in and the client realizes that all of the facts will come out – whether they want them to or not. Clients then will begin to tell you, "There’s something else you need to know…." Only then does the attorney have a chance of knowing most (not all) of what has transpired.
Of course, the irony of all of this is that the client’s failure to disclose all of the relevant information to his attorney only hurts the client. The smarter, wiser client will understand this sooner rather than later, will fully disclose the necessary information to his attorney, and will work with the attorney to obtain the best possible outcome in his particular case.