Making the Lawyer-Client Relationship Work in Challenging Litigation – Speaking of Litigation Video Podcast

New episode of our video podcast, Speaking of Litigation: Sometimes, challenging clients need to be challenged.

Whether encouraging candid client conversations or reining clients in during depositions, it’s important to keep the ultimate goal in mind: success.

In this episode of Speaking of Litigation, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Jim Flynn, Anthony Argiropoulos, and Alex Barnard dive into the world of challenging clients—those who demand more, push boundaries, and ultimately make us better lawyers.

From providing strategic nudges to managing high-stakes tensions, we've got you covered.

Podcast: Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Audacy, Audible, Deezer, Goodpods, iHeartRadio, Overcast, Pandora, PlayerFM, Pocket Casts, Spotify, YouTube, YouTube Music

Transcript

[00:00:00] Jim Flynn: Today on Speaking of Litigation, we're discussing challenging clients, and we're doing that in a way that examines the different ways in which that phrase can be understood. From how to deal with demanding clients, or how to challenge and push your clients in the right direction, to how to build trust with your clients who are appropriately challenging you to be the best lawyer you can and not to be that difficult attorney.

[00:00:28] Jim Flynn: Hello everyone, my name is Jim Flynn. I'm an attorney at Epstein Becker Green and a member of our litigation practice. I'm also the firm's managing partner, and I'm based in our Newark office. Today, we're diving into the topic that's an incredibly relevant one in the world of litigation, challenging clients.

[00:00:45] Jim Flynn: Whether it's pushing clients to think strategically and make informed decisions, or managing the complexities of difficult and critical matters that can pressure and strain relationships, or simply getting them to talk to you more freely in interviews, or to shut up in depositions, these challenges are at the heart of our profession.

[00:01:06] Jim Flynn: In our ever evolving legal landscape, mastering the art of supporting our clients, even and especially the challenging ones, is more crucial than ever. It ensures not only the success of their cases, but also the strength of our professional relationships. Join us as we explore the practical strategies and share these real life stories that shed light on this essential element of our practice.

[00:01:32] Jim Flynn: Joining us in today's discussion are two of my colleagues. The first is Anthony Argiropoulos. Anthony's a member of the firm in our Princeton office. He's the chair of our firm's National Litigation Steering Committee and brings to this discussion a host of experience from high intensity litigation matters and demanding clients who rightfully have come to expect a lot from Anthony and his team.

[00:01:55] Jim Flynn: Anthony, welcome and thanks for joining.

[00:01:58] Anthony Argiropoulos: Thanks, Jim. I look forward to a challenging discussion today.

[00:02:02] Jim Flynn: We also have with us another member of the firm in our litigation practice from our New York office, Alex Barnard. Alex brings a wealth of outside counsel and in-house experience to our discussion. We look forward to hearing how Alex's in-house perspective now helps him work better as outside counsel with corporate legal staffs and internal business clients.

[00:02:21] Jim Flynn: Alex, great to have you on the podcast and looking forward to our chat.

[00:02:25] Alex Barnard: Hey, Jim. Great to be with you. Thanks for the invite. I hope I wasn't too challenging of a client except when I needed to be, and I look forward to helping our listeners to figure out what that means, and maybe providing some useful tips on how to handle the inevitable challenges.

[00:02:39] Jim Flynn: Since I work closely with you, Alex, if this were a criminal matter I could take the Fifth Amendment. It's a civil matter. If I take the Fifth, that'll be held against me, so we'll discuss more as we go through this, how you were as a client. I would say as a preview, always appropriately demanding, but let me escape from that discussion and get quickly over to Anthony. Anthony, I want to start really at the beginning of a case and that first substantive meeting with a client in a difficult or important matter. .

[00:03:08] Jim Flynn: We've all seen A Few Good Men probably over and over again, and I'm sure in many podcasts, people are focused on Colonel Jessup, but today I want to go to the beginning to that first scene when the JAG-assigned lawyers, famously played by Tom Cruise as Lieutenant Kaffee, meet with Dawson and Downey for the first time.

[00:03:33] Jim Flynn: And the clients basically won't talk to them, will only give them clipped information to direct questions. How do you deal with clients that you meet, or witnesses that you meet for the first time. and from square one you're not getting anywhere with them in an important case?

[00:03:51] Anthony Argiropoulos: From my point of view, typically the square one is not going to be a blind meeting where you're assigned to meet a client for the first time.

[00:04:02] Anthony Argiropoulos: Nor is it going to be an instance where you walk into the room and no one's heard of you before and you're building something from nothing. So for me, the step one is challenging yourself before you challenge the client. You're in that room for a reason. Typically you've been retained.

[00:04:20] Anthony Argiropoulos: A client has made a determination that you're the right person for this job. And you have to have confidence in yourself. And you can't be afraid to ask questions. You can't be afraid to go out on a limb. And I think that if you have that confidence in yourself and you're willing to challenge yourself, and there's some vulnerability there, right?

[00:04:43] Anthony Argiropoulos: No one likes to be in a position where you're dealing with awkward silences or you're creating them. I think if you're vulnerable, if you're honest and you appreciate the fact that you're there for a reason, to do a job, that you already exude an element of trust building. I think people respond to that.

[00:05:02] Anthony Argiropoulos: The second component for me really is, you're assigned a task for an existing client or someone's retained you specifically to do a job. You're there for a reason. No one's hiring you to be a yes man. No one's hiring you to take orders. This isn't the military. You're there for a reason.

[00:05:23] Anthony Argiropoulos: And I find that if you're open and direct and have confidence in yourself, which you must, that's an immediate way to build trust.

[00:05:33] Jim Flynn: So Alex, let me shift over to you. And from your perspective, both in-house counsel and outside counsel. How does the outside counsel team take what Anthony said and really earn that trust and especially earn it early in a case?

[00:05:51] Alex Barnard: That's a good way to put it. Jim. It has to be earned. And the answer is simple: hard work and persistence. You need to know the client. You need to know the law. You need to know the business and culture. You need to know the environment they operate in, and you need to keep the client informed. So they don’t have to ask you about how things are going. You can't know everything the first moment in a new matter, obviously, with a new client, but you have to show you did your homework to the best of your ability.

[00:06:15] Alex Barnard: You may not know all the answers, but you know the right questions to ask and you've learned everything you could up to the moment. You've done your homework. Even challenging clients will forgive you for not knowing everything all the time, certainly at the beginning, but they will never forgive a lack of effort or the wasting of their time.

[00:06:32] Alex Barnard: What you do is you learn everything you can about the case and the company and the person that you're talking to, and what their place is in the company. Challenging clients will respect that effort and it becomes a key part of them opening up to you. If they remain resistant, I think it's best to step back and explain what's at stake.

[00:06:50] Alex Barnard: Why you're the right person to address the risk or the concern or the legal challenge, and why failing to work with you would actually harm the client. I'd give concrete examples of legal claims, regulatory exposure, if appropriate, in terms the client might find persuasive. If it's a corporation you may need to involve others.

[00:07:08] Alex Barnard: Certainly that's not something you jump to. But look, trust is not developed overnight. It takes persistence. I had a case a few years back where someone had left a trading business and took client information with them. The head of that business was absolutely apoplectic and wanted to engage law enforcement.

[00:07:25] Alex Barnard: Didn't want to listen to anything I had to say at all. I tried to show what the options were, civilly in court. I tried to show I understood how he felt about the matter. We worked all weekend and ultimately got an injunction getting the information back. It was just this executive and me in court that morning, and we've been close friends ever since.

[00:07:45] Alex Barnard: So being in the trenches together is a very good way to establish trust. Something to keep in mind.

[00:07:50] Jim Flynn: Understood, and thanks for those examples. Anthony, tell us about a time where you were face to face with a difficult client or a difficult situation with a client, following up on Alex's example, and how did you navigate it and what you learned from it?

[00:08:07] Anthony Argiropoulos: Jim, there are so many examples to choose from, but I'll pick one that was particularly interesting because it really was a unique situation. And I'm going to obviously change names, and not give too many details to protect the innocent. We represented a client on a very contentious and very, what I would call, a hairy, complex case. Tens of millions of dollars at issue, a jurisdiction that's not particularly friendly, and it was just tough all the way around.

[00:08:47] Anthony Argiropoulos: During the engagement, the general counsel, the person to whom I was charged with reporting to, unfortunately passed away. A new general counsel came in and the new general counsel, I think appropriately, didn't know me, had no trust in me, and was aware of me reputationally, but this person had his or her own relationships and brought someone else in to effectively be co-counsel, but really take over the case.

[00:09:22] Anthony Argiropoulos: And the challenge for me was pretty simple. A lot of times attorneys get involved in cases, and I think that the natural instinct is let me show value, let me prove value by doing it in a completely different way. And the new law firm came in and wanted to revamp, completely, the legal theory, the complaint, et cetera, everything.

[00:09:50] Anthony Argiropoulos: And I was on as co-counsel, although I was going to be relegated to a much less significant role. And the client and the new attorneys wanted to make a significant change that I didn't agree to. It was challenging for me personally. I know it was challenging for the client.

[00:10:10] Anthony Argiropoulos: And ultimately, it got to the point where I said look, if you're going to make this change I need to withdraw from the case. Very difficult conversation to have. I need to withdraw from the case because I don't agree with it and I think it's going to end very, very badly for you. And I think ethically, I can't sign on to a document that I don't think is going to zealously advocate for you. This one doesn’t.

[00:10:38] Anthony Argiropoulos: And ultimately I convinced the client, and the new counsel who came in, to keep 2 counts of the complaint that I thought demonstrated what the issue really was about. And after hours of calls, conference calls where you could hear the screaming, literally shouting on the other side of the line, those 2 counts were kept in.

[00:11:06] Anthony Argiropoulos: The case proceeded. A motion to dismiss was filed. And I was at a restaurant when the deputy general counsel, who was a carryover from the last regime, called me and said, I don't know if you saw the news, the court ruled on the motion to dismiss. I said, what happened? She said, every count was dismissed except for those two counts at the very end.

[00:11:36] Anthony Argiropoulos: And we’d like you to take over the case again. That one had a very happy ending for me. It was satisfactory for a lot of reasons. The case went on. It was resolved in a very favorable way. But it was definitely a challenging situation. And what I found is, Alex talked about persistence as a way to to build trust with the client.

[00:12:04] Anthony Argiropoulos: I look at a different word, and that different word is performance. A client needs to see you perform. A client needs to see you at your best, see you at your worst. And in that way, I think is the key to building trust and building a relationship.

[00:12:23] Jim Flynn: Thanks. And great story.

[00:12:25] Jim Flynn: And as you said, happy ending, which is really terrific. Alex, I want to go back to something that was alluded to in your previous response. Because you said look, if you're representing a corporation, you may have to involve different people. Sometimes you have one point of contact.

[00:12:44] Jim Flynn: Sometimes you have multiple. And one of the challenges in representing corporations is sometimes that no one person fully embodies the client. And sometimes what makes the client challenging is not any individual, but the fact that there are differences of opinion among those who the lawyers have to answer to.

[00:13:07] Jim Flynn: How do you meet that challenge as outside counsel when you're getting different signals from the client in that context?

[00:13:17] Alex Barnard: I think there's probably not a one-size-fits-all answer that's available for this, but you have to consider all of the different positions and analyze and accommodate them to the extent that you can.

[00:13:29] Alex Barnard: So I think one of the things when you're representing the company is to identify all of the relevant perspectives and people, especially in a significant litigation matter, where that would mean understanding the goals of the company, regulatory issues, the potential for media interest, and the personal goals of the individuals as well, possibly other factors. You're looking for a strategy and an approach that takes into account all these factors into consideration in a way you can easily articulate.

[00:13:56] Alex Barnard: And this may mean anticipating areas of the company where interest could later arise, and considering those, even if your client contact did not. What you don't want to do is advocate for an approach that later causes a big problem in some area that could have been considered up front. So you want to have that holistic view.

[00:14:14] Alex Barnard: Sometimes the question that’s before you is whether to sue or not sue, a black and white type question. Then you have to move the clients to the single position, air out both sides and use your best judgment and advice where you can influence this decision. But again, the client decides what to do ultimately.

[00:14:34] Alex Barnard: I think the issue is to provide all the detail the client asks for and anything pertinent they may not have asked for. For companies, I think arming yourself with information about how peer companies have handled similar matters can be even more persuasive than simply referring to the law or the advice that's solely emanating from you.

[00:14:52] Alex Barnard: That helps to move things forward to get consensus and move things along.

[00:14:57] Jim Flynn: Great. So Anthony, you've heard what Alex just said about how he approaches those issues of differing opinion within the client. You told a great story about differing opinions between allied outside counsel, but when the client itself, in your experience, Anthony, has that difference of opinion, how do you right the ship or get the client on the right path when you think they may be going in the wrong direction?

[00:15:29] Anthony Argiropoulos: I think that what's important is that you keep in mind at all times what the goal is here. It's a tricky thing because it's a goal that has layers. There are business interests, there are personal interests that may be involved.

[00:15:45] Anthony Argiropoulos: And there are competing interests within those business interests. A financial side may view things one way, a CEO may view things another way, operationally it might be viewed differently. But ultimately you have to ask yourself, what's the goal? The goal, and my goal generally, is to win.

[00:16:10] Anthony Argiropoulos: That's it. In a litigation, the goal is to win. Settlement considerations are something to always take into account, those various business mindsets that I'm talking about. But ultimately these cases are about winning or losing. And that's what's great about litigation. Speaking of litigation, that's what's great about it, that there is an endpoint.

[00:16:31] Anthony Argiropoulos: So it's a long and tedious fight to get to the main event. And when you get to the main event, the goal is to win. In my experience, clients don't hire you to be a cheerleader, and you can't be a cheerleader. Your goal is to win because at the end of the day, if the case fails, it's on you.

[00:17:01] Anthony Argiropoulos: Anyone who says I told you so is either trying to steal credit or avoid blame. And when you're brought into a client relationship you need to be, at all times, clear and direct. When a client asks what are the chances of winning, I don't like to say things like, “we have a good chance, I don't know, litigation is very unpredictable.”

[00:17:29] Anthony Argiropoulos: I like to give percentages. We've been doing this too long. And when you do things like that, you're telling the client, and you're being honest and direct with the client, about what it takes to get to that final winning result.

[00:17:51] Anthony Argiropoulos: So the way that I handle it is I'm very direct. If I disagree with someone, I tell them that I disagree, why I disagree, and ultimately there are, when dealing with very strong personalities, some of whom I'm sure are watching this podcast and saying, hey, I think he's talking about me. [laughter]

[00:18:17] Anthony Argiropoulos: But when you're dealing with those personalities and you reach a point where you've exhausted all there is for you to say, “this is why I think you should do this. This is why I think this strategy is correct. This is why these tactics are married to the correct strategy.” If you have a client, an ultimate decision maker who says that he or she disagrees and wants to do it another way, ultimately you're going to execute that strategy, that decision, the best way you can.

[00:18:50] Anthony Argiropoulos: But frankly, my clients know that I have a code for that. When we reach that end point, I will say one of two things. I will either say, “it's your dime, it's your dance,” or I will say, “as you like it.” Those are things that you can do with clients where you've built trust. But ultimately, I think that righting the ship, getting things where they need to be, it's all about being, again, challenging yourself, being confident in your position, and knowing that you're there to do a job and to get to that right result.

[00:19:28] Jim Flynn: Alex, I want to segue off something that Anthony just said, which is, there are some determined, strong-willed clients of big personalities who may be listening to this and saying, hey, Anthony's talking about me.

[00:19:47] Jim Flynn: And we all deal with these busy and passionate executives in legal cases, and sometimes they don't want to be bothered at all to prep for a deposition, or actually sit for a deposition, or they think they know better about the legal process.

[00:20:13] Jim Flynn: We've certainly seen the movie Social Network, which kinda dramatizes the notion of an executive not really behaving in a deposition in the way you want, and being pretty antagonistic to the questioner and volunteering views. How have you dealt with clients who seem set on a course of action, or saying things that you just think are going to be detrimental, and how do you steer them off of that?

[00:20:39] Alex Barnard: When you're dealing, particularly with senior executives, I think people that rise to those high levels typically do so by being assertive, knowledgeable, certain and confident. And that's a great quality for a leader, but it can easily be a combination of traits that could yield a witness that's not taking advice easily. This is where I think we have some tips we can share, some techniques to use in a situation when you're meeting with someone the first time and trying to convince them to stay on the beaten path and to answer the question, for example, in a deposition, but not go off on a diatribe, and not try to carry all the water and tell the whole story.

[00:21:17] Alex Barnard: That's not the not what we do in a deposition, obviously. So a couple of things. The first one is called mirroring. That's where you adopt the language and emotional attitude and even body language of the individual. It's a sales technique, but it works. And I think what you're ultimately trying to do is to show the person that you get the issue and you get them personally.

[00:21:37] Alex Barnard: It's very, very helpful to do. Another thing to do is to go back to basics, deferentially noting you wouldn't be bothering them if it could be avoided, but there's no way to address the matter without them and their support. I think it's important to demonstrate that we really cannot control the process and the outcome.

[00:21:55] Alex Barnard: It's up to a judge. And even if we're 100 percent convinced in the merits of our position, that's not enough. We have to convince the judge. It's an obvious point for lawyers, but not necessarily always for clients. Fourth thing I would do is to stress the importance of the fact that executives of a company, particularly senior executives, can be deemed or assumed to speak for the company.

[00:22:17] Alex Barnard: And so we have to be careful with what we say and how we say it to accurately and truthfully put forth the client's perspective. And I think it's important to mention to witnesses that if you seem antagonistic or you seem bothered, or you're letting the other side get under your skin, that is causing more of a problem, and it won't look good later, particularly if there's a videotaped deposition, but there'll certainly be a transcript.

[00:22:43] Alex Barnard: I think if someone is volunteering information in a deposition, for example, they often do that because they think it'll help them look good, it'll make them seem helpful or it may get the process over with quickly. And reality there is that all it's going to do is generate more questions and more time being spent, along with the potential for liability or internal criticism, which is an important one in terms of the person's self interest.

[00:23:08] Alex Barnard: I think the biggest mistake people make in a deposition is to forget that this process is really about the other side trying to get as much information to use against us as possible. The goal should be to be truthful, but just to answer the questions that are asked. I think if you employ those tactics you have a very good chance of starting to turn someone towards paying attention, listening to the lawyers, and hopefully presenting themselves well in testifying.

[00:23:39] Jim Flynn: Alex, speaking of tactics, let me follow up and ask you a related question, whether in your role as outside counsel or when you were in-house counsel, have you ever used the tactic of collaborating with co-counsel, again, whether somebody else on the inside or outside, do you purposely use a good cop, bad cop approach with a difficult client or a witness you're preparing? And if so how does that work?

[00:24:10] Alex Barnard: I've certainly used it many times, and I think when I was in house, for example, I might ask an outside lawyer to join a discussion, particularly someone who wasn't involved in a matter, to point out the best arguments for the other side, or weaknesses in our side, or a course of action that I'm advising on.

[00:24:29] Alex Barnard: And the issue is that personalities come into play, and sometimes it's not the message that the person has a problem with, it's the person that they're hearing it from. So I think that putting these positions out with someone who's a bit more neutral and not been involved in the conversation can be very helpful.

[00:24:47] Alex Barnard: Things can get emotional when careers are on the line, not to mention significant resources. And I think bringing in a neutral lawyer, even if they're just repeating your own advice, can often help. It gives both sides in a contentious situation, I think, a way to step back for a minute, save face, and potentially accept the neutral view.

[00:25:06] Alex Barnard: And again, the neutral view is likely or certain to be the same as the one you started out with, but not everyone who hears a lawyer give advice is going to immediately agree. So it helps to have some tactics in the toolkit that you can use to guide the client to the right place while you're preserving that relationship.

[00:25:22] Alex Barnard: And frankly, you can do good cop, bad cop with a non-lawyer. You could do it with somebody in compliance. You could do it with somebody in risk. You could do it with anyone. But just that independent view that comes in, if there's a little bit of tension in the discussion, can go a long way.

[00:25:36] Jim Flynn: So Anthony, one of the themes that, you know, right from the outset of our discussion here today and carrying through, references that Alex just made to preserving relationships, have focused on trust. And Anthony, you've mentioned it a couple of times. What are the most common issues you face when building trust with clients, and moving forward with either relationships overall or individual matters?

[00:26:10] Anthony Argiropoulos: I find that a lot of clients that have not worked with us before, or me before, tend to have a negative view of attorneys. And that negative view is based on some, what I would call, somewhat common traits in the industry, in the attorney industry, that we don't exemplify.

[00:26:44] Anthony Argiropoulos: For instance, a lot of attorneys are viewed as being overly conservative, overly cautious, afraid of risk. Now you don't want to be too embracing of risk. But at the same time you need to be honest and you need to be direct and upfront with clients.

[00:27:10] Anthony Argiropoulos: We've talked a lot, there've been a few references to movies. I'm gonna probably blow this quote, but in one of the Star Wars movies, probably Return of the Jedi, Yoda says something like, “do or do not, there is no try,” something like that. And so a great way to build trust with clients is by being a doer.

[00:27:36] Anthony Argiropoulos: It's not just talking about a problem, not just talking about an issue, but immediately coming to the table with both the issue and what the menu of choices are in dealing with the issue. And then a recommendation as to which of those choices you think is correct and why. Not waiting around and listening to everyone and then putting your finger in the air after wetting it to decide which way the political wind is blowing that day and making a decision that way.

[00:28:11] Anthony Argiropoulos: I also think that it's unfortunate that a lot of attorneys are afraid to ask questions, and are afraid to be vulnerable with clients. I've been doing this for a long time. I have no problem at all in asking what an acronym is if I haven't heard it before. I don't like to be on a call and have my iPhone in my hands or have my computer in front of me and Google things along the way so that I can keep up.

[00:28:49] Anthony Argiropoulos: If I feel like there's something I don't understand where there is an acronym that's used, I say, hold on, what does this mean? What are you talking about? And I find that's a great way to build trust too, right? Because it shows your client that you have enough self confidence to make yourself vulnerable to ask that question.

[00:29:10] Anthony Argiropoulos: And that you're actually paying attention to what's going on. So I think that answering questions, not punting to, “this is a great question, let me get back to you next week.” Not giving a client a caveat riddled response to a simple question that you should know the answer to like, “what do you think our chances of success are on this motion?”

[00:29:34] Anthony Argiropoulos: Is it 40%? Is it 80%? Is it 90%? You need to be in a position to answer these questions. So I think that those are the common challenges that I see. And those are the common ways that we try to use to develop and build trust with our clients and the clients appreciate that.

[00:29:54] Jim Flynn: I think you got the quote from Yoda exactly right. But I think it's from Empire Strikes Back. [laughter] But Alex, one of the things that I think exemplified in what Anthony's talking about, is actually getting ahead of these issues and preventing the things that challenge trust or preventing the difficulties.

[00:30:20] Jim Flynn: How do you do that when working with clients, especially new clients or new faces?

[00:30:27] Alex Barnard: Look, I think Anthony was spot on when he mentioned that people are sometimes skeptical of lawyers. I think we all know that. Maybe they got some bad advice, maybe, as a corporate client often experiences they got advice that's technically accurate but wholly impractical.

[00:30:42] Alex Barnard: Anthony mentioned taking risk. Simply giving someone, there's a new statute that just came out, we might want to comply with it, handing it over to the client, say go ahead and comply, or giving advice that they cannot implement, is not helpful to the client. And so that kind of thing is something that we avoid and we don't do here.

[00:31:01] Alex Barnard: I think also, sometimes you'll get a 10-page memo that no one asked for and no one is ever going to read. So I think that you establish trust by being deferential but resolute on your views, to Anthony's point as well, and delivering a product that actually meets the client's need and makes their life easier, which is one of the things we're supposed to be doing as lawyers.

[00:31:17] Alex Barnard: And I think once clients see you know how to do that, that your emails are short bullet points. They're not long paragraphs that take too long to read. That you show up when you say you will, deliver what you said you would on time.

[00:31:34] Alex Barnard: Even a skeptical client slowly starts to get on board. It takes time. I think it's important to keep in mind that a client can accept and forgive a bad result. They can forgive a mistake. They're not going to forgive any lack of attention, responsiveness, reliability, or lack of an effort to try to give them advice and work product that's actually tailored to their needs and preferences.

[00:31:58] Alex Barnard: They want to see that you care and you're working hard for them. And you have to demonstrate it every day. And I think trust is hard earned, as we all know, and it's easy to lose. So I think it's about being a doer, as Anthony said, and executing. And the more you do it over time that trust builds up.

[00:32:17] Jim Flynn: Great. So only time for a couple more questions. One each for you, Alex, and for Anthony. So Alex, let's start with you. If there's one thing to remember to do when facing a challenging client, what would that be?

[00:32:33] Alex Barnard: My view is put yourself in the client's shoes. You need to understand what are their motivations on a personal level, and in an institution if you're dealing with a company.

[00:32:42] Alex Barnard: What do they care about? What does the client care about? What does the individual care about? Show the client and the individual that you care about them and their personal position, and that you'll have their back in the process. People want to feel comfortable that the lawyer is looking out for them.

[00:32:57] Alex Barnard: And again, I think you have to earn that trust one step at a time.

[00:33:01] Jim Flynn: Anthony, let me give you the flip side. If there's one thing to remember not to do when working with challenging clients, especially challenging new clients or new faces, what would that be?

[00:33:14] Anthony Argiropoulos: It would be not to change your advice or your belief on what the appropriate course of action is because someone in the room disagrees with you.

[00:33:30] Anthony Argiropoulos: You have to always remember that you're there for a reason, that there is a reason for the engagement. There's an ultimate goal. And so as difficult as it may be sometimes for some people, you shouldn't leave a room having agreed with what a strong personality at the client has said if you don't feel comfortable or right about it.

[00:33:57] Anthony Argiropoulos: So don't just agree. Don't just go with the flow. That's not why you're there as an attorney. You're there to advise and you're there to get the results that's in the client's best interest. And the last thing I'll say, we're not doctors, but I think that there are good lessons and analogies that you can draw from the physician-patient relationship as it relates to the attorney-client relationship.

[00:34:26] Anthony Argiropoulos: When you go to the doctor and the doctor says to you, for instance, you need to stop smoking, if the patient says no I'm going to continue smoking, so tell me what I need to do otherwise to stay healthy. The doctor can't, shouldn't say, well okay, then if you're going to keep smoking two packs a day here's what else you can do to stay healthy.

[00:34:54] Anthony Argiropoulos: The doctor has to stick with the advice, as much as that client wants to crack open that pack of Marlboro Reds. Stop smoking.

[00:35:02] Jim Flynn: Thank you both. You guys obviously are my “A team,” Alex and Anthony. And I want to thank you and our audience for watching and listening. Subscribe to Speaking of Litigation on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.