The History of “Going to court is hardball”

In trying to explain the reality of a lawsuit to clients, I often wonder whether I have chosen the right language. Lawyers are often rightly criticized for using more words than necessary or for speaking in a language that is neither informative nor natural.

In developing the idea about what is involved when an injured person makes a claim against the party causing the dispute, lawyers sometimes forget that what is natural to them, a part of their daily activity, is new, and sometimes scary to someone who needs legal counsel and help.

Going to court is serious business. It is a room with rules, controlled by a judge who has the responsibility to make sure that the law is followed and that the lawyers for both sides play by those rules. Although a lawyer recognizes the position of his client will not get presented to the judge and jury without opposition, it is sometimes difficult for the client to realize that the other side will be offering their own interpretation of the facts and the law.

Court is truly a place for “hardball” in terms of both sides presenting their understanding of the facts and the law in order to obtain a favorable ruling from the court or verdict from the jury.

Both sides have their own idea of what the issues are, what is true, and what is provable. With a lot of investigation and legal work, their understanding of the facts leads to decisions on what has to be done to prove their point of view and where the flaws and gaps are in the other side’s position.

We know that the defense will seek to develop the issues they feel can give them a chance to defeat our client’s claim. That knowledge is based on experience, investigation, research, meeting with witnesses, and a lot of hard thought as to what the other side will probably do to try to defeat our client’s “truth”.

The concept of court being “hardball” was our way to alert would be clients to the seriousness of what goes on in the courtroom.

In our discussions about using the concept of “hardball”, we were concerned that it might raise a fear factor in anyone who would really rather not go to court, but would want his or her claim settled, without the anxiety or need to do battle in a courtroom. “Going to court is hardball” recognizes that a client needs someone who is ready, willing and able to take the matter to court. We have learned over the years and through many trials and approaches to trials, that the best way to avoid a trial is to be fully prepared for one.

Once the other side recognizes that there will be a clear, forceful and informed presentation of our client’s story, there is a far better chance that the case can be resolved properly, without the need to do battle.

To avoid battle, the other side has to know that you are quite able and willing to do battle and that, no matter what the resources of the defendant, once we are in the courtroom, the playing field is leveled. Preparation and experience will give the opportunity to win and the defense the reason to decide that this is a battle they might want to avoid.

Hardball starts in the preparation and the trip leading up to the courtroom. If it is done right, there is a greater likelihood that the other side will see the wisdom in dealing fairly with an injured person. That recognition is built upon the knowledge that it is preparation that wins both the settlement and the trial.

“Going to court is hardball” simply recognizes that hardball has to be played from the very beginning of investigation and preparation in order to increase the chance of settlement, if possible, and a win at trial, if necessary.

It is a concept that recognizes that while most people simply want their disputes resolved fairly, if the other side does not agree, they will have to deal with the legal consequences of the level playing field of the courtroom.

“Going to court is hardball” does not mean there will be a battle. It does mean that the other side may want to choose the alternative of resolving the dispute rather than letting a jury do it for them. That is the lesson we have learned over so many years.

It takes a while for the other side to know that you will be prepared and will be more than ready to go to court. We have been here and doing it since 1929.

More PR&A Results

CONSUMER FRAUD JUDGMENT AGAINST NEW HOME BUILDER

In an Appellate Division decision, the appeals Court upheld a Consumer Fraud judgment in favor of our clients entered by the Law Division-Burlington County. A Limited Liability company that builds new homes, and some of its owner-members and employees were ordered to pay treble damages and counsel fees in excess of $220,000.00.

$2.5 MILLION JUDGMENT ON BEHALF OF HOMEOWNER THAT WAS DEFRAUDED BY A CONTRACTOR

Our client, a homeowner, was defrauded by a contractor who was hired to perform extensive work at his home. The contractor took the homeowner’s money but failed to perform much of the work and the work that was performed was defective which led to the property being seriously damaged.

PRA APPELLATE ATTORNEYS OBTAIN AFFIRMANCE OF TRIAL COURT DECISION ON BEHALF OF EXECUTORS OF AN ESTATE

We represented the co-executor defendants in an estate litigation. The plaintiff was the wife of the Decedent and made a claim to half of the $2.7 million proceeds from the sale of development rights to a property owned by the Decedent.

GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL REFEREE ASSOCIATION DEFENDED IN APPELLATE DIVISION AND NJ SUPREME COURT

A female high school basketball referee (the plaintiff) brought suit against the association to which she belonged, claiming that she was the victim of gender discrimination because the association did not assign her to officiate boys’ varsity basketball games.

REMOVAL OF A TRUSTEE OF A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR DYNASTY TRUST FOR BREACH OF DUTY

The patriarch of a wealthy New Jersey family created and generously funded a dynasty trust, the income of which was to be distributed by the three trustees to charity for several decades and thereafter the income and principal became available to be distributed to the family in amounts and at times to be decided by the trustees. When the charitable period of the trust ended, the trustees asked the Court to enter an order naming the members of the family beneficiary class of the multi-million-dollar trust.

Scheme to Defraud Our Clients Out of Millions Thwarted

When the patriarch of the family farm passed away, he willed the farm equally to his three grown children. One wanted to work the farm with her husband but could not afford to buy out her siblings at market value. However, she was able to negotiate purchase from her siblings for a below-market price and very favorable mortgage terms in exchange for agreeing to share the profits with them of any eventual sale of the property down the road. Over time the farmland became very valuable.

NATIONAL BANK REQUIRED TO REIMBURSE LOSSES CAUSED BY MISMANAGMENT OF INVESTMENTS

A young adult male client was rendered a quadriplegic after travelling down a slide at a water park head-first at the direction of the person staffing the slide. One of our personal injury attorneys sued the water park, and our client obtained a multi-million dollar settlement. The client then named a well-known national bank as his trustee to manage this money so that there were sufficient funds to care for the client for the rest of his life. The bank, however, invested some of our client’s funds in risky stocks, causing significant financial losses in our client’s portfolio.

Director/Officer Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duty in Corporate Governance Litigation

A director of a charitable foundation sued our client, also a director and the CEO of the foundation, alleging that he breached his fiduciary duty to the foundation by making unwise investments. The plaintiff sought to surcharge our client personally for millions of dollars of losses sustained by the foundation’s investments.

Nursing Home Settlements

Settlements from nursing home neglect cases involving contraction of pressure ulcers, falls with fractures or other injuries and infections have resulted in the following outcomes.

$300K

$300,000 In Additional Insurance Premiums Saved

Before the client came to us, their insurance company had obtained a default judgment against them for additional workers' compensation premiums in excess of $300,000. We aggressively negotiated, had the default judgment vacated by consent and the insurance company agreed to dismiss its lawsuit and exchange mutual releases.