In this case the self-serving "advice" followed a section that told the reader that "a lawyer who specializes in taxation isn't going to be much help to you," also stating that the selected lawyer should have a "lot of experience" but (for the benefit of less-experienced advertisers) "if fresh out of law school, make sure he has an experienced mentor". Other criteria posited were to make sure the lawyer "is a "skilled negotiator", and is "firm", is "reasonable", and is "totally candid", etc., and "don't just hire a pretty face".

How is a consumer is supposed to know, based on a cold interview with an unknown lawyer, whether a lawyer is a "skilled negotiator" or is "reasonable" or "has an experienced mentor" (actually overseeing the work) or is being candid (other than that the lawyer says he is)?

What do large companies do when they need to hire a lawyer? Do they just ask someone from the sales or accounting department to call around? Do they pick out prospective interviewees from ads in a magazine that makes its money from advertising? Usually, no. These sophisticated consumers have their own well-known, long-time trusted corporate counsel do it. In other words, they actually have a lawyer who is experienced in hiring and assessing the performance of other lawyers (and their bills) to do it.

The principle is not much different from an individual's asking his long-time family physician or dentist who he would suggest -- or use himself -- as a medical or dental specialist. In fact, even recommendations from other clients or patients who have used a particular professional, even if that advice is limited, is a better way to gather information about prospective professionals than an interview prompted by magazine or website advertising. (This isn't mentioned, of course, in the filler article of the magazine that makes its money from advertising).

A good friend of mine, a brilliant pediatric ear/nose/throat surgeon (that's three specialties, by the way), tells his students a story about being called by a child's parents to the hospital for an emergency. A toddler had inhaled a jelly bean up his nose, and now couldn't breathe, and was turning blue. While the ENT professor frantically and unsuccessfully searched the child's throat, sinus and head cavities for the missing bean, an emergency room generalist grabbed the attention of a cardio-pulmonary physician who had happened into the hospital. With this assist, the errant bean was found and extracted just in time -- from the child's lung.

When I have time, I will add a few more words about how to maximize the chances that you've hired the right lawyer for your particular situation and needs, but for now I will just leave you with this thought to ponder: If you had cancer, would you go to physician who "specialized" in "surgery", or would you go to an oncologist who also was a surgeon? (That's at least two "specialties"). Would you hire the general surgeon based on his claim that he spends 100% of his time performing surgery of all sorts, whereas the oncologist doesn't?

"Family law", "real estate law", "litigation", "personal injury", and so forth all are broad descriptive categories of the law. All of them encompass sub-areas, some of which may be technical and difficult, but others of which just aren't, as they say, "rocket science". It might even be fair to say that these areas of the law are both "generalist" categories with sub-specialties, and that many of the subspecialties are shared among other broad generalist categories. For example, both estate planning lawyers and family lawyers may handle prenuptial agreements; both tax lawyers and business lawyers may draft employment contracts; and both real estate lawyers and civil litigators may handle mortgage foreclosure litigation. What you might need is not a "real estate lawyer" but a civil litigator with a subspecialty in commercial lease issues; not a "family lawyer" but a tax lawyer who also does divorces; not a "personal injury lawyer" but a products liability lawyer; or an appellate lawyer with a sub-specialty in a particular substantive area. Sometimes you might need a multi-lawyer firm with mixed practice (or more than one lawyer), sometimes your best bet is a lawyer who has more than one area of experience and competence, and sometimes you can go with a generalist whose practice is limited to one or another broad area of the law.

Various areas of law, just like life, also may involve other areas, completely outside of the confines of the so-called specialty (for example, the divorce case with criminal issues, or the real estate closing that involves more than marketable title, such as making sure that title is held in a way that is appropriate considering family or estate planning needs, or the business litigation that involves constitutional issues, or requires the insight of an appellate lawyer to preserve issues at the trial level.)

That someone claims to practice 100% in any area of the "seamless web" that is the law, or even to be certified as a specialist in one of them, does not necessarily mean that the individual is the best choice for you. Unless you have honed in on a rare and unique practice area, where a lawyer is known for handling matters in a very narrow and limited area of substantive law, this kind of broad "specialization" doesn't always mean a whole lot. One excellent divorce lawyer I know also does business and personal injury litigation. Another also does employment and constitutional law. (On the other hand, the guy who specializes in handling traffic tickets might actually do you better than the big-time criminal lawyer.)

It's a marketing claim. A limited practice might mean expertise. Or it may just mean "limited". It might mean that the lawyer is plugged into political and referral networks, even lunching with local judges. That could be good for you, or that could be bad for you. It might mean that the lawyer is chummy with opposing counsel. (The claim that this means the lawyer "can work better" with opposing counsel may or may not mean "in your interests", and certainly any good lawyer should be able to rapidly form a decent working relationship with other counsel where that is desirable). It might mean that the lawyer has certain procedures and practices down cold. That might mean more efficiency and lower cost to you, or it might not. It might mean a lawyer who is jaded, or can get by with sloppy work because of his friendships, or who practices by rote. It might mean a lawyer who could "miss the beans" if your case involves issues touching on other areas of the law, or if you need to do things a little differently, or a little more creatively.

Or it might just mean that individuals who limit their practices to the particular area of law are more likely to advertise in the specialty magazine that is giving you this free advice -- and giving them this suggested marketing approach. Don't take advice from magazines and websites that make money promoting their advertisers, rather than from working for your interests.

 

The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertising.
Before you decide, ask us for free written information about our qualifications and experience.