The book is a pleasure...

With all the recent buzz about THE LITIGATORS (and by that, I mean all the new interest in my book!), I recently had a great review done by Norm Goldman of Bookpleasures.com, and even had an e-interview! Follow the links below to read the full pieces!

"The novel stretches far more than what appears on the surface as it engages its readers in the lives and hearts of its characters...it is a reminder that unfortunately there are far too many lawyers that don't consider the frightful consequences that can result from long and drawn out legal procedures and maneuverings.

What I found most surprising about The Litigators is that it is authored by someone that you would expect would be an unwavering defendant of litigators when you consider that he is an attorney who has tried over 150 cases during a career that has spanned thirty-five years. However, as mentioned in Arthur's bio, he 'was prompted to write The Litigators by his love for the law...' ...And to this I say, Amen!" ...read the review...

Norm: What motivated you to write The Litigators?
Lindsay: I had two goals in mind. First, I have always dreamed of writing "The Great American Novel" and believed my first novel should focus on a subject matter with which I was professionally experienced. The focus of my legal career has always been the defense of products liability lawsuits, and the focus of my avocation has principally involved science and the environment. So that's what The Litigators is... 

Norm: How did you go about creating the characters of Henry Holten, Allison Forbes and Dillon Love?
Lindsay: All my characters are composites of real lawyers with whom I have had cases, but enhanced to capture the idiosyncrasies I wanted to highlight in order to make them come alive as people and illustrate the character flaws I wanted to develop with the story. Like most novels about lawsuits, this one is also about good versus evil, but in The Litigators, there is a major twist to this theme...   

                     ...catch the full answers in the full e-interview...

What does it mean to "win" a lawsuit?

Do lawyers really understand their clients’ needs or do they just push cases through the court system as if a lawsuit was like an athletic contest, with the sole objective to win at any cost? Law schools have historically trained lawyers on how to “win” lawsuits. By “win” they mean triumph in court, as though victory is defined by the team that scores the most points. But athletic contests cannot be resolved by any means short of an all-out battle to the bitter end. That is their purpose, but it is not the purpose of a lawsuit.

It’s really interesting to ask both lawyers and their clients what their definition of a “win” is. I have done this many times, and whenever I pose the question to a lawyer, the response almost always focuses on some grand victory in a courtroom. When I ask my clients this question, the words “victory” and “courtroom” are never mentioned. Most clients talk about a “fair resolution” or “just compensation.” And they almost always talk about what it will cost them to achieve this result. Whether their cost is the lawyer’s one-third of the total recovery or the hourly fees charged by their attorney matters not; they all believe that justice that is expensive is not justice at all.

My novel, The Litigators, focuses on this challenging issue – does the high cost of justice in the American legal system today erode the quality of justice we have a right to expect? Does the winner-take-all approach to litigation produce a just result? When you have finished reading this book, ask yourself this question: who “won” the case? You may be surprised at your own answer.

Join me next week for Do lawyers’ fee agreements motivate them to ignore their clients’ best interests?

The theory of justice

Why is it that when a lawsuit is filed even the people who win often come away with a sense that they actually lost? In the United States we have what lawyers call the "adversary system.” The theory behind this approach to justice is that if both parties fight equally hard to persuade a judge or jury of the virtues of their respective positions, eventually the truth will come out and justice will be done. This theory of course presumes that that battle at hand is not between the local high school football team and the Green Bay Packers, or between Bill Gates and some homeless chap. Unfortunately, any system of justice that is dependent on the equality of financial resources and the equality of the respective lawyers is fundamentally flawed. True, much of the time the battles are between relative equals, but often they are not, and in these latter cases justice is not possible in our adversary system.

Another flaw in the theory favoring an adversarial system is that it presumes that everyone with a dispute actually wants to spend the money needed to support the adversary system. By its very nature, the adversary system is an extremely expensive way of resolving disputes because, to achieve equality of bargaining position, both sides must take every conceivable step to improve their positions. If one side does more than the other, the likelihood that a just result will be realized diminishes drastically. So both sides fight as hard as possible. Not only does this dramatically increase the costs of resolving the underlying disputes, it also dramatically increases the stresses imposed on parties who are forced to spend their energies attacking each other. No wonder even the winners leave court questioning whether justice has been done; after they have been ravaged financially and raked over the coals personally.

This is why I wrote my novel The Litigators – to bring to the forefront the enormous wastefulness of the American system of dispute resolution. If this topic interests you, I suggest you read the novel and then ask this question when you are done: Who won the lawsuit? The answer you give may surprise you.

Join me next week for What does it mean to “win” a lawsuit?

John Grisham: a fine writer

It was a joy to see a new novel by a well-known author with the same title as my own novel. It was a joy to read, and I hope John Grisham gets a chance to read my own book some day. So here's to John, a fine writer:

Grisham has once again done a masterful job of creating a most interesting and highly readable story in The Litigators. Above all Grisham is a great story teller, and he does not disappoint his readers in his latest offering. As usual he has cast a fanciful group of lawyers, though not the powerhouses we often see in Grisham's stories, but instead a pair of ne'er-do-wells who whimsically stumble their way through this wonderfully imaginative legal thriller.

I use the word "thriller" advisedly because the biggest thrill is watching these laughably slick legal shysters scheme their way into a massive legal black hole. In the end, however, this pathetic duo become almost lovable for their Quixotic march towards inevitable disaster in the courtroom at the hands of the typical legal giants who are called upon to defend major products liability cases like this one. I almost hoped that this unlikely pair somehow, in spite of themselves, might find a way to pull off a miracle victory for their equally unappealing clients, if only because such a result is so unexpected.  

You'll have to read the book to find out, but there are a few little twists at the end to keep the reader guessing.  I recommend The Litigators to anyone looking for a good, fun read.