Legal Problem Solving: Does Your Lawyer Merely Work the Problem? Or Solve the Problem?
- A cookie-cutter response vs. a creative solution
- Reaction vs. a plan of action
- “Winning” the lawsuit vs. avoiding the lawsuit
- Churning legal fees vs. finding a cost-effective solution up front
I saw a blog post once detailing a masterful stroke of legal genius by the lawyers for Jack Daniels, and wanted to share it. It’s a prime example of the type of culture and approach we cultivate at Wiseman Bray PLLC– solving the problem vs. merely working the problem.
Legal Problem Solving at Wiseman Bray PLLC
Our clients don’t just want legal answers. They want solutions. So at every stage our goal is to focus on the following question to the client:
“What do you ultimately want to accomplish?”
Sometimes that means we have to act not just as legal advisors, but also legal counselors – asking questions, raising issues the client may not have considered, and then sometimes even gently prodding and steering clients to think beyond their immediate short-term emotions and goals.
In virtually every case, our clients appreciate our focus on long-term solutions. That might mean, for example, our client accepting a short-term loss in exchange for saving a relationship with a customer and securing new business, renegotiating as opposed to litigating a contract, and realizing that the cost of vindication might sometimes outweigh the perceived benefits. Many clients have even remarked how unusual it is that a lawyer would suggest an option that they weren’t even aware of, and that would generate less in billed fees for the lawyer.
But, then again, that’s how we internally answer the very same question we put to our clients:
“What do WE ultimately want to accomplish?”
We want to uniquely serve the best interests of our clients so that they ultimately come back. And refer their peers, colleagues, friends, and family.
And they do. And we’re confident you will, too.