California SLAPP Law

Every profession has it’s own unique procedures and lexicon. If I went to a plumbers’ convention, I’m sure I wouldn’t know half of what they were talking about.

I have to remind myself of this periodically, because during a conversation with a prospective client I’ll use basic legal terms like “summons.” “complaint” and “answer,” assuming the person knows what I am talking about, only to realize as the conversation progresses that they are not familiar with even those terms.  I communicate like crazy with my clients,  following the method tell them what you are going to say, tell them, and then tell them what you said.  Indeed, I can’t imagine a more communicative lawyer.  Yet even well into a case, I occasionally find that a client has a fundamental misunderstanding of the litigation process.

As an example, I once represented a sophisticated businessman from New York on a defamation claim. A newspaper here in California had published a defamatory statement about the client. The action proceeded nicely for the better part of a year, and the judge finally assigned a trial date. I immediately notified the client of the pending trial date, and told him to notify me immediately if the date presented any problem.

The client called and said he had no intention of attending the trial. “That’s why I hired an attorney,” he said.

I was fascinated by the remark, and asked the client just how that would work. He was claiming what the newspaper published about him was false. How, exactly, was I going to prevail on the case if he did not take the stand to explain why the statement was false, and how it had impacted him?

At first blush this appears ludicrous, but consider all that goes on during litigation that does not involve the client. There had been multiple motions during the litigation, and the client had not been required to attend any of those. In the client’s mind, a trial should be handled in the same way. I would simply go to court, establish that the newspaper had made the statement in question, and present the law on why that was defamatory. The client’s version of the facts could be presented by declaration. The client simply did not understand the rules of evidence, and how the opposition must be permitted to cross-examine any witnesses.

Thankfully, the matter settled before I ever had to face the conundrum created by the client. The newspaper caved, and we obtained an amazing settlement. Perhaps the newspaper’s representatives had refused to attend trial as well.

Bottom line: Don’t assume your client knows anything.

The following video is by a San Francisco attorney. He provides a very basic description of the litigation process from beginning to end.  The video is simple but very well done, and is a great resource if you are looking for a broad overview of the litigation process.