There has been a recent shift in thinking in the minds of some lawyers that "limited representation" is a new way to be helpful to clients. In fact, it has been around for a long, long time in the form of "counsellor-at-law." While many lawyers like the tradition of the lawyer representing ALL interests for a client's ENTIRE matter, some clients want a different arrangement.
With so many possibilities, there simply cannot be a one-size-fits-all way to represent a client's interest. Lawyers need to be accommodating and flexible in their representation and offer flat-fee billing.
A survey conducted in 1998 by the Boston Bar Association indicated that in over two thirds
of cases, one or both of the litigants are pro se. This means that clients are going it alone. Why? And, what might be the up-shot?
In many cases, self-represented litigants don't finish their family law action due to lack of understanding of the process. They give up, feeling hopeless. Most litigants do not qualify for legal aid, or live in areas where the legal aid resources are insufficient to meet their needs. These litigants are forced to go pro se because they cannot come up with a huge retainer. They feel as though they are forced into a financially-bound corner. Others find that while they can afford to pay for some legal assistance, the cost of full service representation is simply prohibitive. Then, there are some who desire to retain more control over their cases, and turn to attorneys to coach them, or assist with their paperwork. These litigants retain primary control over their legal matters and appear in court by themselves.
Comments?
Is approaching a multi-faceted case like a "pick-and-choose menu" a smart way to have a client-lawyer relationship?
