Please recommend a great Real Estate/Probate Attorney in San Antonio, Tx
December 5, 2009 9:37 AM Subscribe
[San Antonio Probate/Real Estate Attorney filter] Can anyone from the Hive recommend a good probate/real estate attorney in San Antonio or surrounding areas. Requirements are that this lawyer be a real go-getter and not afraid to stand up against other attorneys on our behalf. I don't want a good ol' boy that's going to become chummy with the other attorneys representing the others in this case as has happened recently with our present attorney. I want someone that's smart, ethical, and a bit of a scrapper.
And probate is an area where clients, notoriously, can be HUGE pains in the ass.
posted by jayder at 10:07 AM on December 5, 2009
posted by jayder at 10:07 AM on December 5, 2009
I don't have a recommendation for you (try Martindale.com), but just to echo the above: As a general matter, you want your lawyer to get along well with the other lawyers, even those for adverse parties.
Most of the time (not all, but most), reaching a successful outcome requires working with the other parties to solve problems. All the best lawyers I know do this, and the most of the contentious lawyers I've dealt with tend to be second-tier practitioners.
Anyway, good luck.
posted by mikeand1 at 10:45 AM on December 5, 2009
Most of the time (not all, but most), reaching a successful outcome requires working with the other parties to solve problems. All the best lawyers I know do this, and the most of the contentious lawyers I've dealt with tend to be second-tier practitioners.
Anyway, good luck.
posted by mikeand1 at 10:45 AM on December 5, 2009
A foolish client expects his lawyer to take an emotional position towards the other attorney that they are taking towards the opposing party.
Your position is a recipie for failure. I am a litigator for a living. Being on an emotionally open and friendly level with opposing counsel is incredibly advantageous for the client--especially at settlement, where 90% of cases are decided.
The lawyer's job is to insulate your emotions from the pursuit of the case, not introduce them to it.
Jayder is also a lawyer.
There's a reason we get paid to do this--we know better than you about how to do this,
posted by Ironmouth at 11:48 AM on December 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Your position is a recipie for failure. I am a litigator for a living. Being on an emotionally open and friendly level with opposing counsel is incredibly advantageous for the client--especially at settlement, where 90% of cases are decided.
The lawyer's job is to insulate your emotions from the pursuit of the case, not introduce them to it.
Jayder is also a lawyer.
There's a reason we get paid to do this--we know better than you about how to do this,
posted by Ironmouth at 11:48 AM on December 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
I am not the OP's attorney.
Yet another AskMe where everyone decides to question the OP's premises. The OP did not say he wants an attorney who deliberately foments bad relations with other attorneys, or that he doesn't want his attorney to get along with the other attorneys, or that he wants his lawyer to take an "emotional position." All the OP said he was looking for is someone who is "not afraid to stand up against other attorneys on our behalf" and is "a bit of a scrapper." Yet it seems like everyone answering has decided the OP wants some ranting screamer who will berate other lawyers on behalf of his client. I think the OP isn't quite so foolish.
And yes, in certain circles, it's very possible for a lawyer to value his relationships with fellow attorneys more highly than his relationship with a particular client. You may never see that client again, but odds are, you will face off against those same attorneys again. I'm not saying most lawyers are likely to behave in this way, but I can certainly understand if the OP feels burned by a lawyer who did do so.
I unfortunately don't have a recommendation to offer (though I don't see how Martindale helps - it's just a phonebook for lawyers). But I wanted to chime in to say that the OP's request is by no means unreasonable, and shouldn't be spun into something that it's not.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 12:32 PM on December 5, 2009
Yet another AskMe where everyone decides to question the OP's premises. The OP did not say he wants an attorney who deliberately foments bad relations with other attorneys, or that he doesn't want his attorney to get along with the other attorneys, or that he wants his lawyer to take an "emotional position." All the OP said he was looking for is someone who is "not afraid to stand up against other attorneys on our behalf" and is "a bit of a scrapper." Yet it seems like everyone answering has decided the OP wants some ranting screamer who will berate other lawyers on behalf of his client. I think the OP isn't quite so foolish.
And yes, in certain circles, it's very possible for a lawyer to value his relationships with fellow attorneys more highly than his relationship with a particular client. You may never see that client again, but odds are, you will face off against those same attorneys again. I'm not saying most lawyers are likely to behave in this way, but I can certainly understand if the OP feels burned by a lawyer who did do so.
I unfortunately don't have a recommendation to offer (though I don't see how Martindale helps - it's just a phonebook for lawyers). But I wanted to chime in to say that the OP's request is by no means unreasonable, and shouldn't be spun into something that it's not.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 12:32 PM on December 5, 2009
The AV peer ratings on Martindale tend to be pretty reliable. It's more than just a phone book.
posted by mikeand1 at 1:12 PM on December 5, 2009
posted by mikeand1 at 1:12 PM on December 5, 2009
I disagree - the ratings are pay-to-play, and no one with a bad rating is going to pay.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 1:53 PM on December 5, 2009
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 1:53 PM on December 5, 2009
And yes, in certain circles, it's very possible for a lawyer to value his relationships with fellow attorneys more highly than his relationship with a particular client.
Valuing one's relationships with other attorneys, and valuing one's relationships with a particular client, are not mutually exclusive.
Any client who expects an attorney not to be friendly and collegial with opposing counsel is not a client worth having. Good attorneys won't hesitate to turn such clients away, because good attorneys always have plenty of clients who don't try to micromanage how they relate to opposing counsel. What someone said upthread is absolutely true --- the most contentious lawyers are always second- and third-tier.
If anonymous goes into an attorneys office and starts talking about how they were upset about their previous attorney being "chummy" with opposing counsel, they will be diplomatically ushered out of any good attorney's office with sincere regrets that he/she will not be able to help them.
I'm frequently in situations where I am going for the jugular trying to destroy opposing counsel's case, then after the proceeding we can be found joking around. There are no hard feelings; we are just doing our jobs. It has always been this way ... consider Shakespeare's line, "And do as adversaries do in law, strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends."
posted by jayder at 2:07 PM on December 5, 2009
Valuing one's relationships with other attorneys, and valuing one's relationships with a particular client, are not mutually exclusive.
Any client who expects an attorney not to be friendly and collegial with opposing counsel is not a client worth having. Good attorneys won't hesitate to turn such clients away, because good attorneys always have plenty of clients who don't try to micromanage how they relate to opposing counsel. What someone said upthread is absolutely true --- the most contentious lawyers are always second- and third-tier.
If anonymous goes into an attorneys office and starts talking about how they were upset about their previous attorney being "chummy" with opposing counsel, they will be diplomatically ushered out of any good attorney's office with sincere regrets that he/she will not be able to help them.
I'm frequently in situations where I am going for the jugular trying to destroy opposing counsel's case, then after the proceeding we can be found joking around. There are no hard feelings; we are just doing our jobs. It has always been this way ... consider Shakespeare's line, "And do as adversaries do in law, strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends."
posted by jayder at 2:07 PM on December 5, 2009
Valuing one's relationships with other attorneys, and valuing one's relationships with a particular client, are not mutually exclusive.
I agree completely - but this does not address the point I was making. Rather, I said that it's possible for an attorney to value his relationships with his fellow attorneys more than he values his relationships with a particular client. That can and does happen sometimes. It's a bad thing for clients when it happens, and it may well have happened here.
The OP never said he expected his attorney "not to be friendly" with opposing counsel. "Chummy" in my book goes beyond merely being "friendly." If in fact the OP is simply offended or bothered by the fact that his attorney is friendly with opposing counsel, then yes, I agree the OP has another think coming. But if this "chumminess" is indeed what I suspect - that the attorney is giving short shrift to his client's concerns because he cares more about his relationship with opposing counsel - then the OP is right to be unhappy and to want different representation.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 3:19 PM on December 5, 2009
I agree completely - but this does not address the point I was making. Rather, I said that it's possible for an attorney to value his relationships with his fellow attorneys more than he values his relationships with a particular client. That can and does happen sometimes. It's a bad thing for clients when it happens, and it may well have happened here.
The OP never said he expected his attorney "not to be friendly" with opposing counsel. "Chummy" in my book goes beyond merely being "friendly." If in fact the OP is simply offended or bothered by the fact that his attorney is friendly with opposing counsel, then yes, I agree the OP has another think coming. But if this "chumminess" is indeed what I suspect - that the attorney is giving short shrift to his client's concerns because he cares more about his relationship with opposing counsel - then the OP is right to be unhappy and to want different representation.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 3:19 PM on December 5, 2009
"I disagree - the ratings are pay-to-play, and no one with a bad rating is going to pay."
But you can't pay for a good rating. In general, if someone has an AV rating, they're a good lawyer.
posted by mikeand1 at 5:42 PM on December 5, 2009
But you can't pay for a good rating. In general, if someone has an AV rating, they're a good lawyer.
posted by mikeand1 at 5:42 PM on December 5, 2009
A better way to tell a probate specialist in Texas is whether (s)he is a certified as a specialist in estate planning and probate law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. Here's the search engine. You could also try Super Lawyers.
I'll also reiterate the fact that attorneys do better when they get along with opposing counsel-- indeed, "junkyard dogs" may make their clients temporarily happy with their posturing, but over the years (and there have been many, coming on 25 now), I've seen them lose when they didn't need to. Their biggest problem is that they often don't know when to turn it off, so they carry it into court, where judges absolutely hate it. I realize that we're all extrapolating from what the OP said, but the reason I (and I'm guessing, the others with whom I agree) all raise caution flags is that we've seen this before-- the client who wants to fire his lawyer for not being enough of a junkyard dog, and actually being civil with opposing counsel. The OP should know that, regardless of the underlying facts, any lawyer worth hiring is going to contact the original lawyer before taking the case to get the other side of the story.
My opinion of Martindale has declined over the years-- it probably started when they took away my rating when I refused to pay for an ad. And guess what? They're circling the drain. They've tried all sorts of ways to monetize their stuff, and none of them are working.
posted by missouri_lawyer at 7:08 PM on December 5, 2009
I'll also reiterate the fact that attorneys do better when they get along with opposing counsel-- indeed, "junkyard dogs" may make their clients temporarily happy with their posturing, but over the years (and there have been many, coming on 25 now), I've seen them lose when they didn't need to. Their biggest problem is that they often don't know when to turn it off, so they carry it into court, where judges absolutely hate it. I realize that we're all extrapolating from what the OP said, but the reason I (and I'm guessing, the others with whom I agree) all raise caution flags is that we've seen this before-- the client who wants to fire his lawyer for not being enough of a junkyard dog, and actually being civil with opposing counsel. The OP should know that, regardless of the underlying facts, any lawyer worth hiring is going to contact the original lawyer before taking the case to get the other side of the story.
My opinion of Martindale has declined over the years-- it probably started when they took away my rating when I refused to pay for an ad. And guess what? They're circling the drain. They've tried all sorts of ways to monetize their stuff, and none of them are working.
posted by missouri_lawyer at 7:08 PM on December 5, 2009
But if this "chumminess" is indeed what I suspect - that the attorney is giving short shrift to his client's concerns because he cares more about his relationship with opposing counsel - then the OP is right to be unhappy and to want different representation.
(1) No evidence of this.
(2) My experience representing small individual clients in litigation is that many clients emotionally want the lawyer to take a posture reflecting the emotional position of the client.
(3) Who cares more about relationships with opposing counsel? If I'm seeing them again and again, they are 99% of the time on the other side. What good is any lawyer doing his/herself by valuing the relationship with opposing counsel all of the time? There is no benefit to it. Everybody knows the score. We do this for a living, and fight as hard as we can. What lawyer could possibly respect or even like opposing counsel who takes it easy on the opposition's case just to get opposing counsel to like them? Crazy.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:27 PM on December 5, 2009
(1) No evidence of this.
(2) My experience representing small individual clients in litigation is that many clients emotionally want the lawyer to take a posture reflecting the emotional position of the client.
(3) Who cares more about relationships with opposing counsel? If I'm seeing them again and again, they are 99% of the time on the other side. What good is any lawyer doing his/herself by valuing the relationship with opposing counsel all of the time? There is no benefit to it. Everybody knows the score. We do this for a living, and fight as hard as we can. What lawyer could possibly respect or even like opposing counsel who takes it easy on the opposition's case just to get opposing counsel to like them? Crazy.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:27 PM on December 5, 2009
1) No evidence the other way, either, based on just the OP's question. But I've been in touch with the OP privately and have learned more, and I can tell you that my interpretation is correct.
2) That hasn't been my experience.
3) This is a generalization based on your own personal experiences. As a demonstration that this generalization is not universal, in my line of litigation, someone who is opposing counsel in one case is just as likely to be my co-counsel in the next case.
Also, I did not suggest that a motive for chumminess would be simply to to "get opposing counsel to like" you. That would indeed be crazy!
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 10:27 AM on December 6, 2009
2) That hasn't been my experience.
3) This is a generalization based on your own personal experiences. As a demonstration that this generalization is not universal, in my line of litigation, someone who is opposing counsel in one case is just as likely to be my co-counsel in the next case.
Also, I did not suggest that a motive for chumminess would be simply to to "get opposing counsel to like" you. That would indeed be crazy!
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 10:27 AM on December 6, 2009
"What good is any lawyer doing his/herself by valuing the relationship with opposing counsel all of the time? There is no benefit to it."
I don't know what area of law you practice in, but in my area (criminal defense), it's critical. We don't do it so the opposing lawyer will like us, we do it because resolving problems requires that we get along.
What's the benefit? It could be something very simple, like getting a stipulation, or an extension on a deadline. Or it could be something extremely important, like getting a better plea deal, or even a non-prosecution.
This doesn't mean that we "take it easy on the opposition's case", it means that we keep the relationship friendly and cordial, to the extent possible.
posted by mikeand1 at 10:42 AM on December 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
I don't know what area of law you practice in, but in my area (criminal defense), it's critical. We don't do it so the opposing lawyer will like us, we do it because resolving problems requires that we get along.
What's the benefit? It could be something very simple, like getting a stipulation, or an extension on a deadline. Or it could be something extremely important, like getting a better plea deal, or even a non-prosecution.
This doesn't mean that we "take it easy on the opposition's case", it means that we keep the relationship friendly and cordial, to the extent possible.
posted by mikeand1 at 10:42 AM on December 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
But I've been in touch with the OP privately and have learned more, and I can tell you that my interpretation is correct.
Ooh, nice way to "win" an AskMe thread: unconfirmable contact with the anonymous poster.
posted by jayder at 1:29 PM on December 6, 2009
Ooh, nice way to "win" an AskMe thread: unconfirmable contact with the anonymous poster.
posted by jayder at 1:29 PM on December 6, 2009
You're right; I shouldn't have brought that up.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 9:17 PM on December 6, 2009
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 9:17 PM on December 6, 2009
You're right; I shouldn't have brought that up.
That's still only one side of the story. The facts are unconfirmable. I also find the OP's story to be problematic in the extreme. He or she needs to discuss the matter with current counsel, not some lawyer who reads his question on the internet. Totally unprofessional.
Likely also a serious breach of the Rules of Professional Responsibility. Assuming you are an attorney, you are not allowed to contact a represented party on a legal matter directly if you are an attorney. They may contact you, but you may not initiate contact like that.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:14 PM on December 7, 2009
That's still only one side of the story. The facts are unconfirmable. I also find the OP's story to be problematic in the extreme. He or she needs to discuss the matter with current counsel, not some lawyer who reads his question on the internet. Totally unprofessional.
Likely also a serious breach of the Rules of Professional Responsibility. Assuming you are an attorney, you are not allowed to contact a represented party on a legal matter directly if you are an attorney. They may contact you, but you may not initiate contact like that.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:14 PM on December 7, 2009
I didn't contact anyone - there is no way to contact an anonymous poster unless they leave a throwaway email address, which the OP did not. Rather, the OP contacted me. I can see how my wording was confusing, but it's impossible for me or any ordinary user to contact an anonymous poster here. (I have a feeling that if you asked a moderator for an anonymous poster's contact information, you'd be met with a flat "no.")
I therefore kindly ask that you retract your remark that there may have been a breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct here. Out of curiosity, to which section of the rules are you referring? Section 4.2 of the model rules states:
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 1:59 PM on December 7, 2009
I therefore kindly ask that you retract your remark that there may have been a breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct here. Out of curiosity, to which section of the rules are you referring? Section 4.2 of the model rules states:
In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order. (Emphasis added.)(The applicable rule in my state does not differ in any material way.) I am not representing any clients in this case. And in any event, as I say, the OP contacted me, not the other way around. Have a good day.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 1:59 PM on December 7, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
And --- be prepared for the next attorney you consult with to consider it a very big red flag that you have already fired another attorney. In civil litigation, most attorneys consider that a sign that "this client is trouble ... do not represent." Many savvy attorneys will not take a case when another attorney has been fired, because it suggests the client is a huge pain in the ass.
posted by jayder at 10:06 AM on December 5, 2009