Lawyernomics

Much has been written about using social media to investigate opposing parties, opposing counsel, and even judges. No doubt plenty more will be penned (or typed if you are like me). But even as investigations of your opponents’ social media personas have become routine, many practitioners have overlooked an important step in early case evaluation–a step that should be taken at the very outset of every potential case.

When a potential plaintiff calls or walks in the door, we generally have a set of initial questions: name, address, business, general concerns, and, of course, what potential defendants and/or conflicts may exist.  Likewise, when a potential defendant calls, we want to know who it is, what they do, how they got involved in the dispute, and, again, what potential plaintiffs and/or conflicts may exist. Each lawyer has her own set of criteria to consider when making this calculation.

Using all the information available to check out potential clients

Armed with that information, we feel comfortable deciding whether to take the case. And yes, factors other than the potential client’s ability to pay are generally considered. The question is, however, are you using all available information to make an informed decision? Do you really know what you are getting yourself into? I will tell you that the answer to that question is: no. It is impossible to know everything. But, thankfully, there are steps that you can take to make sure that your client checks out.

I consider this the “Nigerian Princess Check.” Without a doubt, you have received several emails (possibly earlier today) promising you millions of dollars if you help rescue a Nigerian Princess or if you provide some cash in order to “unlock” even more cash. More targeted approaches discuss international businesses with claims or debts they need help pursuing or recovering. You know, “legal work.” Now, like most, you probably hit the “delete” or the “spam” button and don’t give it another thought. That’s what I do. But there are occasions where curiosity gets the best of me and I decide to do a little “research” on the individuals and entities involved. Does that bank in Hong Kong really exist? Has that royal family really been in exile for all these years? Does that Chinese company really have precious-metal mines throughout east Asia?

We are lawyers, and we want to know, and we want to know as much as possible.

Clients warrant the same skepticism as opponents

So why do we often turn a blind eye to our own clients? We are skeptical of basically everything, so shouldn’t we be equally skeptical of those who are walking in our doors? Maybe there is inherent loyalty to someone who thinks you are the right man or woman for the job. Maybe work is slow and we need the case regardless of the prominent warts popping up all over the place. Maybe the client is someone we know and, as a result, we feel uncomfortable questioning them about touchy subjects. But if we are going to do our job, we need to know everything about everyone involved, our clients included.

• Do a quick Google or Bing news search.
• Look up the company on LinkedIn.
• Search Twitter for tweets made by or referencing those seeking to retain you.
• Check out blogs and read online reviews.

Wouldn’t it be helpful to your decision making process if you came across a Facebook post saying, “Man, I have been to every lawyer in town and no one wants to take this case.” This type of information is readily available. More importantly, this is information that we are already amassing–we are just limiting our research to opponents.

A party-opponent admission floating around the social media world can be extremely helpful to your case; we all hope to find that “smoking gun” type of (mis)statement. But those admissions can be equally destructive. The last place you want to find out about your client’s social media “history”, whether it is personal or business, is in your client’s deposition.

Here’s what you should do

Take that list you use to investigate opposing parties and witnesses and use it in your own case evaluation.

• Mine information to determine whether the case makes sense for you to take on.
• Can the plaintiff afford it?
• Are the defendants judgment proof?
• Is a 50% contingency fee really worth it when the entire case is based on clear lies your “client” told you during your initial meeting?
• Is this even someone or something you want your firm associated with?

And don’t forget those indirect conflicts. Are there any relationships between your “good” clients and this potential new client? Heaven forbid that the President/CEO of your new client was fired from one of your existing clients for misconduct.

In short, don’t assume that social media is only a tool for digging up dirt on your opponents. Your clients are going to have dirt too. You want to know what that dirt is. And you want to know it from the outset. Armed with that information, you can decide whether this is something you want to dedicate the next two years (or more) of your life to.

About the author: Tyson B. Snow, Esq., is a founding partner at Mumford West & Snow, LLC, in Salt Lake City. His practices focuses on management-side employment litiation and all facets of tech-lit. He regularly blogs on the interplay of social media and the law at his Social Media, Esq.™ blog. You can follow him on Twitter at: @tysonESQ.