Do I Need a Lawyer?

One of the questions we are frequently asked is: Do I need a lawyer? An individual is free to represent himself or herself as to any legal matter, whether it is a business transaction, initiating a lawsuit, defending a lawsuit, or what have you.

Business organizations are not nearly as free on that score. As a rule they must, by law, be represented by attorneys. Some exceptions apply in certain small claims cases. Smalls claims court in Illinois is limited to cases that seek money only, and not more than $10,000.00.

Having said that, there are any number of situations in which it makes sense for an individual to be represented by an attorney even though the law does not require it. One sort of situation in which this would be true is the situation which entails an attorney representing the opponent, so that it makes sense to engage legal counsel in order to "level the playing field" and avoid a mis-match. An arrangement of that sort makes more and more sense as the stakes of the case increase.

We were recently informed about a case that arose out of a home remodeling project that went awry. The homeowners had spent lavishly on a purely elective improvement to their house but they saw no value in engaging an attorney to help them at the contract formation phase of the transaction. The problem surfaced when the project was nearly complete. The amount at stake, only a few thousand dollars, was far too small to justify a legal fee. But the contractor had an attorney. The attorney had submitted what was, in fact, a modification of the construction contract, five dense, single-space pages that called for further construction work on the part of the contractor. The homeowner airily misdescribed this document as a mutual release, as if to say that anyone with a license to practice law could tell in two minutes whether the document was sufficient for the task.

The upshot: There was not enough money involved to warrant paying an attorney but there was too much work in prospect on the part of the attorney to justify giving a "freebie" to a stranger who had tens of thousands of dollars available to improve the house but no budget at all for legal work.

DILETTANTE BUILDER FORCED TO BUY BACK HOUSE

We went to trial against a first-time homebuilder and got a judgment that required him to refund the full purchase price to our client ($280,000.00) and take back a deed to the house. The defendant asserted that he was a "casual seller" on the grounds that he had lived in the house after he built, and therefore he was liable, if at all, only for damages (e.g., costs of repair).

Cross examination of him at the end of trial showed that he was a "builder-vendor" and as such liable to take back the house and refund the purchase price. A snapshot of the house and its front lawn clearly showed a "for sale" sign from one of the national real estate agencies. Under it was a little white sign that could not be read with the naked eye. But a magnifying glass showed that the sign said the house had been built by the defendant's home-building company.

The snapshot was shown to the defendant, who said the white sign was too small to read. The magnifying glass was pulled out and handed to him. "Try this." The defendant pushed aside the glass and the photo, looked the judge in the eye, and told him the sign said the house had been built by his company.

Result: Instead of a judgment for damages, which would have meant that our client had to keep the house, there was a judgment for rescission: The defendant took back the house and refunded the purchase price.

FIRM NEWS

• $70,000.00 settlement in case with truck company for injuries to motorist who needed no hospitalization and had medical bills under $6,000.00.

• Six years of litigation culminated in settlement for client-contractor who rebuilt flood-damaged mansion. Our client got every dime of the insurance proceeds at stake. The homeowner, our opponent, was represented by a 22-lawyer Chicago firm that is nationally known for representing "victims" of "toxic mold."

• $25,000 settlement for snowboarding injuries suffered in a header off a “rail” at local ski hill.

• The Illinois Tollway Authority demanded $30,000 from our client for unpaid tolls and penalties. Our defense: mistaken identity. One telephone call and one letter resolved the matter. Fines and penalties paid by client: zero.


• We bested the largest law firm in Oak Brook when we successfully defended a young computer consultant from overseas who was sued for violation of a non-compete agreement, unfair competition, and misappropriation of trade secrets by his former employer, a national consulting company. Their application for a preliminary injunction was denied after an evidentiary hearing of several days, which established, among other things, that the "vast sums" allegedly expended to cultivate the pertinent customer amounted to less than $130.00 for a few lunches. They appealed. The trial judge was affirmed. The opponent then threw in the towel and dropped the case.


• We won a trial against a high-brow Chicago firm in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Chicago. Our client was the trustee of a $40 million debtor's estate. The defendant-opponent faced a "preference" liability of nearly $400,000.00 and had only one defense worth talking about, i.e., that the trustee had blown the statute of limitations. We established at trial that the trustee's personnel got the suit papers to the courthouse on time, and it was an employee of the court clerk's office who delayed in processing them.