Do biglaw associates ever feel guilty (when you know your client is harming people), and how do you deal with it? Forum

[12YrsAnAssociate]

The only time I got a file and thought "man, our client screwed up, it should really pay plaintiff $100,000," I told the client, and the client readily agreed. When I tried to signal a willingness to settle to plaintiff's lawyer, he demanded over $100 million, which was way higher than he could have ever recovered at trial under the pertinent law, even if he got the most insane runaway jury. So I didn't feel too bad litigating the case after that. About a year later, after spending tons of time on motions and discovery, we settled for about $110,000.

[Anonymous User]

Also, let’s remember that everyone deserves legal advice.

Yeah...,.but not really the question that OP asked though. And to be honest I'd argue no to that as an entitlement for voluntary motions that aren't brought against you by the state. But we all gotta eat. I'll go with that

[Anonymous User]

The only time I got a file and thought "man, our client screwed up, it should really pay plaintiff $100,000," I told the client, and the client readily agreed. When I tried to signal a willingness to settle to plaintiff's lawyer, he demanded over $100 million, which was way higher than he could have ever recovered at trial under the pertinent law, even if he got the most insane runaway jury. So I didn't feel too bad litigating the case after that. About a year later, after spending tons of time on motions and discovery, we settled for about $110,000.

I've had clients do similar logical errors too. Spending grands over a disputed difference under a hundred. But whatever. It's their money to burn I guess. Still perplexed the Judges who openly ask WTF over it, but meh.

[12YrsAnAssociate]

The only time I got a file and thought "man, our client screwed up, it should really pay plaintiff $100,000," I told the client, and the client readily agreed. When I tried to signal a willingness to settle to plaintiff's lawyer, he demanded over $100 million, which was way higher than he could have ever recovered at trial under the pertinent law, even if he got the most insane runaway jury. So I didn't feel too bad litigating the case after that. About a year later, after spending tons of time on motions and discovery, we settled for about $110,000.

I've had clients do similar logical errors too. Spending grands over a disputed difference under a hundred. But whatever. It's their money to burn I guess. Still perplexed the Judges who openly ask WTF over it, but meh.

I think my client was totally logical. As soon as it was confronted with a $100,000 error by its employee, it tried to settle for $100,000. Either as posturing, or wishful thinking, plaintiff's lawyer demanded millions instead of agreeing to a reasonable sum. It was really frustrating because the case was not worth taking to trial.

[notinbiglaw]

1. It's a job
2. We're officers of the court representing clients, all of whom deserve representation because that's how our court system works.
3. It's a job
4. If something is truly appalling, you can opt out and I am sure the client will be fine.

[Anonymous User]

Yes, 100%. I feel bad all the time. Doing private consumer class actions work, no. You're dealing with plaintiff-side attorneys who are usually pursuing frivolous claims. Agency investigations regarding consumer fraud? You're usually dealing with bad people (at least at the management level).

How do you justify it? You don't. It weighs on me all the time. I'll leave from biglaw soon.