Lawyers often need to represent clients that do not have too many defenses for the crimes charged or the civil wrongs alleged. However, our adversarial system of justice requires that people get solid representation since justice is easier to attain when the best arguments are presented by all sides. As attorneys, it can sometimes be easy to give up and throw in the towel on certain aspects of a representation. However, in most situations, lawyers should not go down without a fight.
I do not handle criminal matters, but I handle civil cases, including landlord-tenant issues, commercial disputes, and other matters. In many situations, I can advance easy arguments in court to represent my client’s interest. However, sometimes my client is guilty of the conduct alleged, and it is difficult to argue that my client therefore should not be subject to the consequences of these actions.
Earlier in my career, I represented a client in an eviction matter that was filed by a landlord. My client had not paid the rent as owed under the lease. As a result, the landlord instituted an eviction action. None of the typical arguments for tenants existed since the landlord was not in breach of the lease itself nor had the landlord constructively evicted the tenant or committed any other type of harm.
Landlord’s lawyer asked me before the eviction trial if I would allow landlord to take a judgment of possession against my client without opposition. I quickly rejected this proposal. As an attorney, I had an obligation to diligently represent my client, and I did not believe I would be fulfilling this obligation by refusing to put up a fight. I told landlord’s lawyer that I would hold landlord to its burden of proof, so I would not allow landlord to obtain a judgment of possession against my client without a fight. The landlord’s lawyer did not seem pleased with this response since the landlord’s attorney would have to put on a case before a judgment of possession was entered.
At the eviction trial, landlord had a witness who did not have firsthand knowledge of the lease at issue in that case. This witness also did not sign the lease nor did he witness the execution of the lease. Moreover, landlord’s witness did not have firsthand knowledge of how rent was paid to landlord and did not personally track all of the rent payments made from tenants. I then submitted to the court that the landlord was not able to authenticate the lease at trial and did not submit enough evidence to show that my client did not submit rent as required by the lease.
The court ended up ruling in favor of landlord, but these authentication issues put my client in a good place if we wanted to appeal the decision. Ultimately, my client settled with the landlord, and an eviction was avoided. It is possible that had my client simply permitted landlord to obtain a judgment of possession without a fight, landlord would have been in a better position and would have negotiated a less-favorable settlement to resolve this situation.
Of course, lawyers have a responsibility to avoid frivolous arguments, and in some situations, it is almost impossible to make an argument that favors a client. However, lawyers should never go down without a fight, and lawyers can usually use some creativity and research to advance some kind of argument in favor of a client. Making every argument available to a client can help promote a client’s interests and ensure that a client receives the best outcome possible when facing a legal issue.
Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothman.law.
The post Lawyers Should Never Go Down Without A Fight appeared first on Above the Law.