Lawyers: Professional Courtesies Opposing Counsel Exchange Require Strategy

• A mentor advised always seeking a concession when opposing counsel requested a professional courtesy, viewing it as a strategic opportunity.
• This perspective aligns with zealous advocacy, where litigation involves negotiations and accommodations can be leveraged for client benefit.
• However, the author now believes that demanding something for every professional courtesy is an overly transactional approach.
• Attorneys often need accommodations due to personal or professional circumstances, such as family emergencies or illness.
• Insisting on a trade for minor requests that cause little inconvenience can appear petty and undermine professional collegiality.

A purely transactional approach to professional courtesies risks undermining collegiality and can appear unfeeling, especially when an accommodation causes minimal inconvenience.

A seasoned legal professional once shared a guiding principle regarding interactions with opposing counsel: whenever a colleague sought a professional courtesy, the opportunity should be seized to secure a reciprocal concession. This advice suggested that whether the request involved accepting service of process, agreeing to an extension of a deadline, or other common attorney procedural accommodations, it presented a chance to gain something of value in return. From this perspective, adept lawyers should avoid granting favors without leveraging them to advance their client's interests.

The rationale behind this approach is rooted in the nature of legal practice. Attorneys are ethically bound to advocate zealously for their clients, and litigation frequently involves a series of negotiations where concessions are traded. If opposing counsel requires an accommodation, it can logically be viewed as a strategic moment to further one's own client's position. Indeed, there are specific circumstances where negotiating over such procedural accommodations is not only reasonable but necessary, particularly if acceding to a request could prejudice a client's case or significantly alter the course of the litigation.

Despite the apparent logic of always seeking reciprocity in legal practice, a purely transactional approach to professional courtesies can prove counterproductive and, at times, even detrimental to lawyer professional etiquette. Over time, the belief has emerged that consistently demanding a concession for every minor favor requested by opposing counsel fosters an unnecessarily rigid and impersonal legal environment. This constant negotiation can strip away the human element inherent in professional interactions.

Attorneys, like all individuals, face personal and professional challenges that may necessitate accommodations. A request for an extension, for instance, might stem from an unforeseen family emergency, a sudden illness, or simply an overwhelming caseload that makes meeting an original deadline difficult. In such situations, immediately responding with a demand for a counter-favor can be perceived as petty or unfeeling, especially when granting the initial request would cause minimal or no inconvenience to the other party. It suggests a lack of understanding for the common pressures faced by legal professionals.

The tension between zealous advocacy and collegiality is a constant in legal practice. While a lawyer's primary duty is to their client, the long-term benefits of fostering a respectful and cooperative professional environment should not be overlooked. An insistence on negotiating legal favors for every small request can erode goodwill and make future interactions more contentious, potentially complicating rather than streamlining the legal process.

Effective lawyer professional etiquette involves discerning when an attorney genuinely needs a helping hand versus when a request is a strategic maneuver. Not every instance of attorney procedural accommodations should be treated as an opportunity for a quid pro quo. Recognizing when an accommodation causes little to no inconvenience allows for a more collegial approach, which can ultimately benefit the legal community as a whole and maintain a lawyer's professional reputation. This balance ensures that while client interests are protected, the broader professional relationship among counsel remains constructive.

Lawyers should consider the strategic implications of demanding concessions for every professional courtesy, balancing zealous client advocacy with the long-term benefits of collegiality and maintaining a professional reputation, especially when an accommodation causes minimal inconvenience.

Source: Original reporting via legal commentary