Many people going through a divorce feel that they must have an aggressive attorney to represent them, or the result can end up being unfair to them. At certain times throughout a divorce case, aggressively advocating for a client is acceptable, however constant aggression can backfire and end up costing the client a lot more financially and emotionally.
Aggression is appropriate:
- When there's a piece of legislation that resolves an issue in your favor, and the opposing side is unaware of it.
- If the client needs to take a principled stand even though he has been advised that he is unlikely to prevail, and is willing to expend a lot of resources to make that argument.
- When the opposing side is using bullying tactics, it is appropriate to take an aggressive stance to demonstrate that intimidation will not work.
An attorney that's in the habit of always taking an aggressive stance can have a negative impact on the case if during settlement negotiations the lawyer persists in arguing instead of negotiating.
An illustration of this kind of aggressive behavior would be during mediation when a lawyer rejects an offer and exclaims, "What a stupid offer, stop wasting everyone's time and bring something better to the table", instead of countering with another offer and allowing the negotiation process to move forward and increasing the likeliness of reaching a settlement.
The behavior in the first example does nothing to help the negotiation process and reduces the likeliness of settling. The aggression can escalate negative emotions and encourage an atmosphere of conflict rather than problem solving. A case that ought to be quickly settled can be drawn into an extended legal battle, costing the client an extensive amount of time and expense while potentially ending up with a worse court-ordered decision than the offers that were dismissed throughout negotiations. - 31397
Aggression is appropriate:
- When there's a piece of legislation that resolves an issue in your favor, and the opposing side is unaware of it.
- If the client needs to take a principled stand even though he has been advised that he is unlikely to prevail, and is willing to expend a lot of resources to make that argument.
- When the opposing side is using bullying tactics, it is appropriate to take an aggressive stance to demonstrate that intimidation will not work.
An attorney that's in the habit of always taking an aggressive stance can have a negative impact on the case if during settlement negotiations the lawyer persists in arguing instead of negotiating.
An illustration of this kind of aggressive behavior would be during mediation when a lawyer rejects an offer and exclaims, "What a stupid offer, stop wasting everyone's time and bring something better to the table", instead of countering with another offer and allowing the negotiation process to move forward and increasing the likeliness of reaching a settlement.
The behavior in the first example does nothing to help the negotiation process and reduces the likeliness of settling. The aggression can escalate negative emotions and encourage an atmosphere of conflict rather than problem solving. A case that ought to be quickly settled can be drawn into an extended legal battle, costing the client an extensive amount of time and expense while potentially ending up with a worse court-ordered decision than the offers that were dismissed throughout negotiations. - 31397
