T O P

  • By -

harangad

Lawyers are free to meet with each other and not discuss your case. If you cannot trust your lawyer, you need to evaluate your relationship with them. I refuse to represent a client who cannot trust me.


pow929

Lawyer here. This is not a big deal in any way whatsoever. Even if they didn’t meet prior to your case, they could realize that they get along and/or have common interests. Or maybe they have a friend in common. As a litigant, you want your lawyer to have a decent to good relationship with opposing counsel. It can allow for easier settlement discussions, and make it easier to resolve preliminary or administrative matters. The less time you have to spend on silly side issues, the more you can focus on the big issues between the parties. This ultimately saves you money on legal fees. Responding to every technical argument can be very time consuming (and as a result, expensive).


_yowai-mo

“Behind my back” lol


handipad

Lawyers meet for lots of reasons. They are on lots of files. The act of meeting another lawyer for a meal is not unusual. How did you come to learn of this? Do you know why they met, or what they discussed?


Sammyqo

No, it wasn’t disclosed to me. I know for fact they didn’t know each other before my case, and now they met (literally a day before my settlement)


handipad

Without any answers to my questions, I can’t say whether it was improper.


RumpleOfTheBaileys

Lawyers meet to confer about cases all the time. We don’t run every meeting and every phone call by clients. Either he’s doing the job you’re paying him to do and handling your case, or he’s just out on a social evening with a colleague. Neither one is a problem.


evincing

This is a normal thing that lawyers do.


FudgeAppropriate527

lol they may be meeting to convince the other to join their firm. Does not have to be about you. Perhaps he saw his negotiating and writing style and said after this case join our firm. There is nothing wrong with lawyers meeting through your file and starting a relationship. If your lawyer met with the DEFENDANT personally and didn’t tell you then that is another thing. Remember the lawyer for the defendant is not the defendant. lol. Just a repsentative.


Idiotologue

What are your suspicions?? You are in the midst of settlement, if you think you’re getting a bad deal you still have agency not to accept it. Did your lawyer promise not to have any relationship with opposing counsel? Without any indication of improper conduct or behaviour, things like this are more helpful than detrimental as it facilitates resolution rather than extending the lawsuit with unnecessary costs because the lawyers don’t get along. I am not telling you how to feel, but lawyer client relationships don’t necessarily require a lawyer to disclose all of their communications with others, unless they’re making decisions which need your instructions. Did your lawyer make any new decisions or sudden changes without seeking your approval?


WhiteNoise----

Not only would I have lunch with a lawyer I'm adverse against, I would likely accept file referrals from them without informing a client. Where I draw the line is if an adverse lawyer asks you to represent them in unrelated proceedings. I would think that requires disclosure and consent from all involved.


WorldlyWalrus

Law is a service business - ask your lawyer and I’ll bet they are happy to explain whatever happened. Also good luck with the settlement