The key inquiry is on “trial’.  How many trials has the attorney conducted? What kinds of cases, the length of the trials and whether cases were tried to a judge or a jury?  Look for someone who has experience in cases similar to your own.

Not if the sole practitioner has allocated the time and resources needed to meet the heaviest litigation schedule.  In my experience, on occasion there are tactical attempts to overwhelm the opposition with paperwork for perceived advantages, but it never works for several reasons:

a)  I control the volume of cases I choose to handle.  And, I would not accept a case unless confident I have the time available to handle it.  Also, can I realistically help obtain a reasonable result at a price the client can afford?  

b)  I hire contract paralegals, attorneys and experts as needed to assist in different phases of the case. Contract help is very common as it is a cost effective way to obtain a desired result with the need to maintain the overhead of the permanent staff.

c) Technology, such as a computer-aided research and database management evens the playing field in terms of quickly finding applicable law and applying it to the facts involved.

d) The legal system itself has procedural safeguards that prohibit oppressive and needlessly burdensome tactics.  Knowing how to use those safeguards blunts those who try to misuse the system.

Fee structures very. An hourly rate is common. The rate is negotiated and may depend on complexity, anticipated work involved, number of issues and parties, the novelty of the issues and the amount in controversy.

I also take selected cases on a contingent fee basis.  This means that my fee is a percentage of the recovery, if any; I am able to obtain in the case.  Professional liability cases often fall in this category.

Finally, at times I consider a blend of the two; a “hybrid”” combination of hourly and contingency fees.  This arrangement is useful when cash flow considerations are important, and the case is such that a sharing of risk of recovery between the client and the attorney makes sense.

I have been a participant in at least fifty ADR proceedings and have substantia experience in all stages and in various venues. 

Everyone understands the wisdom of settling disputes in a cost effective manner. Courts promote the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution – “ADR.”   Instead of using the resources of a judge or jury in court proceedings, the parties are encouraged to resolve their dispute outside the court system.

Mediation is a proceeding whereby parties, with or without lawyers, present their case in the presence of a mediator, a “’facilitator’ trained to focus and guide but not decide an issue.  The parties themselves decide whether or not they settle the case.

Arbitration is a proceeding whereby the parties present their case in to an arbitrator, often an agreed upon retired judge or experienced attorney to decide the case.  Unlike mediation, the arbitrator decides the case. The proceeding is formal and involves the presentation of evidence by both parties similar to a court trial. The parties decide before the arbitration begins whether or not they will be bound to the arbitrator’s decision.  Non-binding arbitrations give the parties a look at a probable outcome of their dispute should they go to court and litigate the case.

Today, many contracts and terms of service required that disputes be resolved by arbitration.    

Mediations and arbitrations can be less expensive than litigation, especially if the amount in controversy is not large.  Whether mediation or arbitration is cost effective depends on the disputed issues in the case and the settlement positions of the parties. A competent attorney instructs the client on the realities of the case so an informed decision can be made.