Deciding Whether To Travel For Clients


Last year, I wrote an article about how it often makes sense to hire local counsel rather than to travel for clients in some circumstances. Travel time can add costs for clients, and if a lawyer is not admitted in a given jurisdiction, it might be better to have local counsel handle a case rather than pro hac into a jurisdiction and handle a matter in a faraway forum. However, in some circumstances, it might make sense for a lawyer to travel several hours to complete work for a client rather than task local counsel with a given matter.

Administrative Issues

Whenever a client hires a new lawyer, administrative issues need to be hashed out before a lawyer can take a case. One sticking point is that a new lawyer usually will require an advance retainer payment even if the new lawyer simply needs to make a quick court appearance for a client or complete some other simple task. Of course, it makes sense that a lawyer would not trust that a new client would pay the lawyer’s bills and insist that an advance retainer be paid.

However, clients often do not like to pay advance retainers. Even though retainer payments are often refundable if they are not used on legal fees, clients know that lawyers find a way of justifying why they spent enough time to keep the retainer payments. Depending on how much a local counsel wishes to charge for an advance retainer payment, a client might be willing to pay their usual lawyer for travel costs associated with completing a legal task a few hours away.

Urgency

In certain circumstances, clients do not have much notice before they need to appear in court or attend to some legal matter. Some exigent legal proceedings, including stays and some eviction matters, require action immediately, and clients may only give lawyers a day or two of notice that a legal matter needed to be handled. In such circumstances, a client’s typical lawyer may need to handle a matter since there is simply not enough time to onboard local counsel.

Before a lawyer can handle a case, they typically need to do conflicts checks to make sure that a matter does not conflict with other work handled by a firm. Although this should be an easy process, some larger firms have numerous clients they need to cross-check, and this can take time. Also, it can take time for a retainer payment to clear, and some lawyers may not work on a matter until they know that a payment has cleared. In such circumstances, a client’s usual lawyer may need to jump on a matter even though excessive travel time is involved.

Institutional Knowledge

Some clients use one law firm for all of their work spread across multiple jurisdictions. Indeed, my own law firm handled work all across the states in which we practice for our clients so that the client only has one lawyer they need to deal with for all of their legal work. It can sometimes be difficult to bring new lawyers up to speed on a matter so that they can be as effective as possible in court.

In such circumstances, it might make sense to have a client’s typical lawyer travel to a court appearance to advocate on a client’s behalf. The additional expense associated with traveling might be worth it since bringing a new lawyer up to speed would also come at a cost. In addition, the client’s typical lawyer might be able to advocate better for a client because of their wealth of knowledge about a client’s affairs.

Personally, I always handle work for clients if the travel time is around two hours or less, and I’ll handle anything within driving distance in some circumstances. Certain situations might require the involvement of a client’s typical lawyer rather than hiring local counsel to cut down on transportation costs.


Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothman.law.

The post Deciding Whether To Travel For Clients appeared first on Above the Law.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


Taylor Swift’s legal team is seeking to reject Justin Baldoni’s subpoena amid his ongoing legal battle with Blake Lively.

According to legal documents obtained by Billboard on Tuesday, May 13, the legal firm representing Swift, 35, labeled the subpoena “an abuse of the discovery process” in a legal motion filed on Monday, May 12. (The firm, Venable, was subpoenaed alongside Swift on April 29 as part of Baldoni and Lively’s It Ends With Us legal drama, per details revealed in Venable’s motion.)

Venable’s filing, which proposed that Baldoni, 41, subpoenaed Swift, a close friend of Lively, 37, to take heat off his legal case, read, “Venable had nothing to do with the film at issue or any of the claims or defenses asserted in the underlying lawsuit. There is no reason for this subpoena other than to distract from the facts of the case and impose undue burden and expense on a non-party.”

Venable’s motion comes after a representative for Swift slammed Baldoni’s lawyers in a statement to Us Weekly on Friday, May 9. “Taylor Swift never set foot on the set of this movie, she was not involved in any casting or creative decisions, she did not score the film, she never saw an edit or made any notes on the film,” the statement read. “She did not even see It Ends With Us until weeks after its public release, and was traveling around the globe during 2023 and 2024 headlining the biggest tour in history.”

Taylor Swift s Rep Reacts to Singer Being Subpoenaed in Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni Lawsuit 749 Split Template Updated


Related: Taylor Swift Subpoenaed in Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni Lawsuit

Taylor Swift has been subpoenaed in Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni’s ongoing legal battle, but a representative for the singer has slammed the lawyers for involving her client. “Taylor Swift never set foot on the set of this movie, she was not involved in any casting or creative decisions, she did not score the film, […]

Baldoni — who directed and starred opposite Lively in 2024’s It Ends With Us — and Lively’s legal battle went public in December 2024 when Lively filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against him. Baldoni filed a $400 million countersuit, which also targeted Lively’s husband, Ryan Reynolds, and her publicist Leslie Sloane. Lively, Baldoni and their legal teams have vehemently denied each other’s accusations.

In Venable’s motion, further details into Baldoni’s subpoena were also unveiled, including his request for all communications between Swift and Lively, as well as Swift and Reynolds, 48, and the couple’s legal team, per Billboard. Venable claimed that Baldoni should have sourced the communications from Lively and Reynolds directly.

GettyImages-1925904668-Blake-Lively-and-Justin-Baldoni

Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni in January 2024
Jose Perez/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images

Swift’s involvement in It Ends With Us was outlined in her lawyer’s statement to Us on May 9. “The connection Taylor had to this film was permitting the use of one song, ‘My Tears Ricochet.’ Given that her involvement was licensing a song for the film, which 19 other artists also did, this document subpoena is designed to use Taylor Swift’s name to draw public interest by creating tabloid clickbait instead of focusing on the facts of the case.”

Last week, a lawyer for Lively, Mike Gottleib, criticized the idea of Swift and Reynolds being subpoenaed by Baldoni during an interview with People. “This is a case about what happened to Blake Lively when she raised claims of sexual harassment on the set,” he said in an article published by the outlet on May 8. “It’s not a case about how songs were chosen for the movie. It’s not a case about fictional Marvel characters in Deadpool movies.” (In January, Baldoni also accused Reynolds of basing the Deadpool & Wolverine character “Nicepool” on him, requesting that Disney and Marvel Studios “preserve all existing documents and data relevant,” and all docs “relating to or reflecting deliberate attempt to mock.”)

Gottleib continued, “You have to ask the question … why are these people being subpoenaed? Do they have any actual relevance to the case at hand? You can’t just go around subpoenaing people because they’re famous and you think it will generate a bunch of headlines. And the federal courts don’t tolerate that kind of behavior.”

Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni on 'It Ends With Us' set


Related: Blake Lively’s Lawyers Seeking Justin Baldoni’s Financial Records

Blake Lively’s attorneys are reportedly seeking access to Justin Baldoni’s financial records in the latest chapter of their lengthy legal battle. TMZ reports that Lively’s legal team are asking Baldoni and his company Wayfarer Studios to prove they lost the $400 million they are seeking in their defamation lawsuit against the It Ends With Us […]

Baldoni’s lawyer Bryan Freedman responded to Gottlieb’s comments in a subsequent statement. “Although obviously uncomfortable for the Lively parties, the truth is not a distraction,” Freedman wrote. “The truth has been clearly shown through unedited receipts, documents and real life footage. More to come. Blake was the one who brought her high-profile friends into this situation without concern for their own personal or public backlash. As the truth shows, she used her Dragons to manipulate Justin at every turn.”

In a March issue of Us, a source exclusively shared that Swift “wasn’t happy with being brought into the legal mess.” Us also revealed on Monday that Lively and Swift’s relationship is now “strained,” with the friendship proving “not what it used to be” as Swift keeps her distance from the actress.



Source link