Litigation Attorneys Vs Trial Attorneys – What’s The Difference?
Litigation means a trial, right? So what does it matter if you hire a litigation attorney or a trial attorney? Can’t they both perform the same functions? Not necessarily, which is why it’s important to do your research before you hire an attorney to help you with a litigation lawsuit.Litigation AttorneysFirst of all, litigation does not automatically mean a trial is going to happen.
The vast majority of the time, lawsuits are settled out of court without ever going to a jury. This is due to the work of the litigation attorney or litigator.Litigation attorneys handle all of the work that happens outside a courtroom. They file lawsuits, gather evidence, conduct legal research, meet with the client, file and argue motions and defend their clients. This is all done long before a lawsuit even gets close to going to a judge and jury. Litigators may even attempt mediation to achieve an out of court settlement but if a case looks like it is going to go to court, these lawyers can take depositions and prepare clients and their witnesses.
Although there are differences between the two attorneys, those differences don’t make one better than the other. They each serve different functions and perform different roles. Working with both types will give you the best of both worlds: an expert lawyer familiar with the ins and outs of your case and an expert presenter who can best argue your position in court if it gets that far. Many law firms have both litigators and lawyers on staff, giving you access to both types of specialists under one roof.If you prefer to have a single lawyer represent you through the entire process, be sure to ask about his or her experience in court and specifically if it has included cases covering the same legal subjects as yours.
Then you’ll need to decide if the attorney has the experience you need to carry your case through to the end or if you’re better off starting out with a litigator and hiring a trial lawyer if and when your case gets to the courtroom.
A former U.S. States Attorney breaks down Richard Monroe's case ahead
JOHN MORGAN FILED HIS LAWSUIT AGAINST THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT JUST BLOCKS FROM THE CAPITOL, WHERE LAST MONTH LAWMAKERS APPROVED THE LAW IMPLEMENTING MORGAN'S AMENDMENT 2 IT ALLOWS CANNABIS TO BE EATEN, APPLIED AS OIL, EVEN VAPED BUT NOT SMOKED. MORGAN'S LAWSUIT WOULD FORCE THE STATE TO ALLOW SMOKING. >> THE VAST MAJORITY IF NOT 100% KNEW THAT SMOKE WAS INCLUDED. SO THE FACT THAT WE ARE HERE TODAY IS REALLY UNNECESSARY BUT HERE WE GO. REPORTER: LOOKING CLOSELY AT AMENDMENT 2 THE ONLY REFERENCE TO SMOKING IT, IS IN A LINE THAT BANS SMOKING MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN ANY PUBLIC PLACE. MORGAN CLAIMS THAT MAKES IT CLEAR, VOTERS EXPECTED IT WOULD BE SMOKED AND HE SAYS LAWMAKERS TOOK AWAY THAT RIGHT. ALL THEY DID IN THE PROCESS WAS TO HURT THE PATIENTS WHO NEED IT THE MOST. REPORTER: MORGAN'S LAWSUIT CITES A 2012 STUDY PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, IN WHICH DR. MARK PLETCHER WROTE, ANALYSES OF PULMONARY FUNCTION AND LUNG DISEASE HAVE FAILED TO DETECT CLEAR ADVERSE EFFECTS OF MARIJUANA USE ON PULMONARY FUNCTION. BUT, HE ALSO WROTE, PRIOR STUDIES OF MARIJUANA SMOKERS HAVE DEMONSTRATED CONSISTENT EVIDENCE OF AIRWAY INJURY AND INFLAMMATION AS WELL AS INCREASED RESPIRATORY SYMPTOMS SIMILAR TO THAT SEEN IN TOBACC SMOKERS. FURTHER, THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY POSITION ON THE POSSIBLE HARMS OF MARIJUANA, SMOKED MARIJUANA DELIVERS HARMFUL SUBSTANCES TO USERS AND THOSE CLOSE BY, INCLUDING MANY OF THE SAME SUBSTANCES FOUND IN TOBACCO SMOKE. A SPOKESWOMAN FOR THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT DECLINED TO COMMENT FURTHER UNTIL AFTER A REVIEW OF MORGAN'S LAWSUIT. COMING UP ALL NEW AT 5:00 ON WESH 2 NEWS, WE'LL HEAR FROM A LOCAL PATIENT AND A LOCAL DOCTOR.
Tensing attorneys want Confederate flag T-shirt barred from evidence, question expert's credentials
In civil lawsuits, people frequently have their depositions taken. A deposition is a question and answer session under oath between a witness and at least one attorney. When the witness is testifying on behalf of one party, either the plaintiff or the defendant, the opposing party's attorney will do most of the questioning. Usually, the lawyers for all parties are in the room, although not all of the attorneys present choose to ask questions. There is usually a court reporter present taking down what everyone says on a stenotype machine. There are many reasons for lawyers to take legal depositions. Here are just a few.Rules The most prominent reason someone has to give a deposition is because a lawyer is not allowed to simply call up a witness for the other side and start asking questions. In fact, they are not allowed to speak to them about the case when that person has been designated as a witness for another party. Instead, it must be done in a formal setting. The witness is usually subpoenaed and the lawyer that has designated that person as a witness will usually be present.Information When an attorney believes someone has information that will lead to discoverable evidence in a civil case, they are allowed to take their deposition. The witness is required by law to cooperate and answer fully and honestly any of the proper questions asked by the lawyers. Oftentimes, the lawyer may not know all of the important facts of the case. There may be people, objective third parties, who witnessed a car accident or that have factual information that is crucial to the case. Learning what they know about it may shed light on the case before it goes to court. This prevents one side from springing surprises on the other during trial.Intimidation On rare occasions, an attorney will take the deposition of a witness for the other side to intimidate or make the person nervous. This is more common in domestic dispute matters, such as child custody or divorce cases. It also happens more often to the plaintiff, the party bringing the lawsuit. This is sometimes done to make sure the witness knows the lawyer means business. Playing hardball in a deposition is what happens when the attorney is purposefully trying to make the witness uncomfortable. This may be done to make sure they tell the truth and to find out if the person will drop the case, rather than have to go through similar questioning in court, as well if the case goes to trial.