Kiser Beyond Right and Wrong

The Power of Effective Decision Making for Attorneys and Clients
2010
ISBN: 978-3-642-03814-3
Verlag: Springer
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: 1 - PDF Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 444 Seiten

Let us endeavor to see things as they are, and then enquire whether we ought to complain. Whether to see life as it is, will give us much consolation, I know not; but the consolation which is drawn from truth if any there be, is solid and durable: that which may be derived from errour, must be, like its original, fallacious and fugitive. Samuel Johnson, Letter to Bennet Langton (1758) Attorneys and clients make hundreds of decisions in every litigation case. From initially deciding which attorney to retain to deciding which witnesses to call at trial, from deciding whether to ?le a complaint to deciding whether to appeal a verdict, attorneys and clients make multiple, critical decisions about strategies, costs, arguments, valuations, evidence and negotiations. Once made, these de- sions are scrutinized by an opponent intent on exploiting the consequences of any mistake. In this intense and adversarial arena, decision-making errors often are transparent, irreversible and dispositive, wielding the power to bankrupt clients and dissolve law ?rms. Although attorneys and clients may regard sound decision making as incidental to effective lawyering, sound decision making actually is the essence of effective lawyering. An attorney's knowledge, intelligence and experience are inert re- urces until the attorney decides how to deploy those skills to serve the client's interests. Those decisions, in turn, largely determine a case's course and outcome.

Randall Kiser is the principal analyst at DecisionSet®, a decision services and professional development company in Palo Alto, California. Mr. Kiser, a decision analyst and an attorney, has worked closely with litigants, insurers and attorneys in assessing risks, evaluating litigation alternatives and improving individual and organizational decision-making skills. He is the author of How Leading Lawyers Think (Springer, 2011) and the lead author of the widely read article, 'Let's Not Make A Deal: An Empirical Study Of Decision Making In Unsuccessful Settlement Negotiations' (Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2008). Mr. Kiser received his law degree in 1978 from the University of California, Berkeley (Boalt Hall), and obtained his undergraduate degree in 1975 from the University of California, Davis (Highest Honors). His legal education is complemented by the award in 2002 of a certificate in leadership from the Peter F. Drucker Graduate School of Management, Claremont Graduate University.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Kiser, Randall

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Acknowledgements;5
2;Contents;6
3;Introduction;13
3.1;1.1 Purposes and Premises of this Book;15
3.2;1.2 Organization and Philosophy of this Book;16
3.3;1.3 What Attorneys Think About Other Attorneys’ Decision- Making Skills;18
4;Part I Evidence;20
4.1;Prior Research on Attorney-Litigant Decision Making;21
4.1.1;2.1 The Paradox of Copious Lawyers and Scant Data;21
4.1.2;2.2 Empirical Legal Research on Judge, Jury and Attorney Decision Making;25
4.1.2.1;2.2.1 Judge-Jury Agreement;27
4.1.2.2;2.2.2 Punitive Damages;29
4.1.2.3;2.2.3 Judges’ Assessments of Juries;29
4.1.2.4;2.2.4 Attorney-Jury and Attorney-Attorney Agreement;30
4.1.2.5;2.2.5 Attorney-Litigant Negotiation Positions, Assessments and Outcomes;30
4.1.2.6;2.2.6 Disparities In “Same Case” Evaluations and Outcomes;31
4.1.2.7;2.2.7 Comparisons of Predictions and Outcomes;32
4.1.2.8;2.2.8 Damages Award Predictions;33
4.1.2.9;2.2.9 Overview of Judge, Jury and Attorney Decision Making;34
4.1.2.10;2.2.10 Attorney-Litigant Decision Making in Actual Cases;34
4.1.2.11;2.2.11 Kiser, Asher and McShane Study of Attorney-Litigant Decision Making;37
4.1.3;2.3 Chapter Capsule;37
4.2;A Current Assessment of Attorney-Litigant Decision Making In Adjudicated Cases;39
4.2.1;3.1 The Fifty Percent Implication;41
4.2.2;3.2 New Data;42
4.2.2.1;3.2.1 The Four Datasets;42
4.2.2.2;3.2.2 VerdictSearch Publications;43
4.2.2.3;3.2.3 Case Database Selection Criteria;44
4.2.2.4;3.2.4 Attorneys in Dataset;45
4.2.3;3.3 Concepts and Definitions;46
4.2.3.1;3.3.1 Negotiation Disparities and Decision Error;48
4.2.3.2;3.3.2 Underpricing;49
4.2.3.3;3.3.3 Overpricing;49
4.2.3.4;3.3.4 Negotiation Disparities Without Decision Error;50
4.2.3.5;3.3.5 Effect of Negotiation Disparity on Decision Error;51
4.2.4;3.4 Overall California Results;52
4.2.4.1;3.4.1 Costs of Decision Error;52
4.2.4.2;3.4.2 Negotiation Disparities;54
4.2.5;3.5 New York Results;55
4.2.6;3.6 40-Year Historical Study;56
4.2.6.1;3.6.1 Historical Decision Error;56
4.2.6.2;3.6.2 Historical Cost of Decision Error;57
4.2.7;3.7 Attorney-Mediator Results;58
4.2.7.1;3.7.1 Attorney-Mediator Decision Error;59
4.2.7.2;3.7.2 Attorney-Mediator Negotiation Disparities and Settlement Rates;61
4.2.7.3;3.7.3 Tentative Conclusions About Attorney-Mediators;61
4.2.8;3.8 Predictor Variables;62
4.2.8.1;3.8.1 Context Variables Trump Actor Variables;63
4.2.8.2;3.8.2 The Five Major Context Variables;64
4.2.8.3;3.8.3 Two Secondary Context Variables;81
4.2.8.4;3.8.4 The Major Actor Variables;86
4.2.9;3.9 Chapter Capsule;95
5;Part II Causes;97
5.1;Psychological Attributes of Decision Errors;98
5.1.1;4.1 Perceptions of Adversaries and Conflicts;100
5.1.1.1;4.1.1 Fundamental Attribution Error;101
5.1.1.2;4.1.2 Selective Perception and Memory;106
5.1.1.3;4.1.3 Self-Serving Bias;111
5.1.1.4;4.1.4 Reactive Devaluation;113
5.1.1.5;4.1.5 A Practical Example Of Overcoming Self-Protective Biases;116
5.1.2;4.2 Evaluations of Risk and Reactions to Perceived Risk;117
5.1.2.1;4.2.1 Framing;120
5.1.2.2;4.2.2 Anchoring;124
5.1.3;4.3 Reactions to Threatened Changes in Position and Status;129
5.1.3.1;4.3.1 The Endowment Effect;129
5.1.3.2;4.3.2 Status Quo Bias;131
5.1.3.3;4.3.3 Overconfidence;133
5.1.3.4;4.3.4 Confirmation Bias;135
5.1.3.5;4.3.5 Representative and Availability Heuristics;138
5.1.3.6;4.3.6 Hindsight Bias;141
5.1.3.7;4.3.7 Discounting Of Future Payments and Costs;142
5.1.3.8;4.3.8 Sunk Cost Bias;145
5.1.4;4.4 Chapter Capsule;148
5.2;Institutional Impediments to Effective Legal Decision Making;150
5.2.1;5.1 Law School Education;152
5.2.1.1;5.1.1 Separation of Legal Education from Legal Practice;153
5.2.1.2;5.1.2 Testing Law Students’ Reasoning Skills and Moral Judgment;154
5.2.1.3;5.1.3 An Example of Law Student Decision Making;157
5.2.1.4;5.1.4 Deficiencies in the Case Method of Teaching;159
5.2.1.5;5.1.5 Attempts to Change Law School Curriculum;165
5.2.2;5.2 Law Firms;173
5.2.2.1;5.2.1 Conflicts Between Efficient Problem Solving and Billable Hour Requirements;175
5.2.2.2;5.2.2 The Consequences of Avoiding “The Big Picture”;178
5.2.2.3;5.2.3 “Due Process” and the Elevation of Process Above Results;181
5.2.2.4;5.2.4 Competitive Market Pressures, Undue Deference to Client Expectations and Inappropriate Client Involvement;183
5.2.3;5.3 Mental Impairment;191
5.2.4;5.4 The Disappearing Civil Trial;197
5.2.4.1;5.4.1 Settling Without Benchmarks;198
5.2.4.2;5.4.2 Causes and Motivations for Pre-Trial Settlements;201
5.2.5;5.5 Chapter Capsule;204
6;Part III Consequences;205
6.1;Legal Malpractice Liability For Settlement Counseling and Decision Errors;206
6.1.1;6.1 Malpractice Claims Data;207
6.1.2;6.2 Competing Policy Considerations;209
6.1.3;6.3 Malpractice Claims Arising from Settled Cases;211
6.1.3.1;6.3.1 Inadequate Advice Regarding Settlement and Trial Prospects;213
6.1.3.2;6.3.2 Client Coerced into Settlement by Attorney;216
6.1.3.3;6.3.3 Attorney’s Mistakes Prevented Client from Obtaining a Better Settlement or Prosecuting Case to Trial;218
6.1.3.4;6.3.4 Attorney’s Delays Caused Client to Forego More Favorable Settlement Terms;221
6.1.3.5;6.3.5 Conflict of Interest, Fraud and Collusion with an Adverse Party;222
6.1.3.6;6.3.6 Attorney Did Not Transmit Settlement Proposals to Client;225
6.1.3.7;6.3.7 Failure to Conduct Adequate Legal Research, Discovery and Investigation Before Settlement;226
6.1.3.8;6.3.8 Attorney Not Authorized to Consent to Settlement Agreement;230
6.1.3.9;6.3.9 Settlement Agreement Defectively Drafted;232
6.1.3.10;6.3.10 Client Misunderstood the Settlement Agreement;233
6.1.3.11;6.3.11 Failure to Advise of Uncertainty of Law and Anticipate Judicial Error;234
6.1.4;6.4 Malpractice Claims in Adjudicated Cases;238
6.1.4.1;6.4.1 Attorney Remiss In Failing To Initiate Settlement Negotiations, Solicit A Pre- Trial Settlement Offer Or Otherwise Effectuate Settlement;239
6.1.4.2;6.4.2 Client Inadequately Apprised of Risk of an Adverse Verdict;242
6.1.5;6.5 Defenses to Settlement Malpractice Claims;244
6.1.5.1;6.5.1 The Client’s Consent Bars a Challenge to the Adequacy of the Settlement Agreement;245
6.1.5.2;6.5.2 The Client’s Ratification of the Settlement Agreement;247
6.1.5.3;6.5.3 The Client’s Failure to Prove Reliance on the Attorney’s Advice;247
6.1.5.4;6.5.4 The Judgmental Immunity Rule and the California Model Limitations;248
6.1.5.5;6.5.5 The Client Cannot Prove Damages Proximately Caused by the Attorney’s Negligence;250
6.1.5.6;6.5.6 Another Attorney’s Negligence as an Intervening or Superseding Cause;252
6.1.5.7;6.5.7 Reduction of Malpractice Awards by the Amount of Attorneys Fees the Client Otherwise Would Have Paid the Attorney;253
6.1.6;6.6 Chapter Capsule;254
6.2;Ethical Implications of Attorney-Client Counseling and Decision Making;256
6.2.1;7.1 A Profile of Disciplinary Actions;257
6.2.2;7.2 The Duty to Communicate all Material Facts and Events to Clients;259
6.2.3;7.3 The Duty to Exercise Independent Judgment and Render Candid Advice;264
6.2.4;7.4 The Duty to Provide Adequate Advice to Enable Clients to Make Informed Decisions;267
6.2.5;7.5 The Duty to Identify and Protect Clients with Diminished Capacity;269
6.2.6;7.6 The Duty to Competently, Independently, Diligently and Expeditiously Represent Clients;273
6.2.7;7.7 The Duty to Abide by Client Decisions;277
6.2.8;7.8 The Duty to Prevent Conflicts of Interest in Aggregate Settlements;279
6.2.9;7.9 The Duty to be Candid and Truthful in Communications with Clients, Opposing Counsel and the Courts;281
6.2.10;7.10 Chapter Capsule;286
7;Part IV Solutions;287
7.1;Obstacles to Becoming an Expert Decision Maker;288
7.1.1;8.1 Defenses and Barriers to Sound Decision Making;289
7.1.1.1;8.1.1 Defenses to Learning;290
7.1.1.2;8.1.2 Distortions of Reality;293
7.1.1.3;8.1.3 Attorney Belief System Defenses;298
7.1.2;8.2 Myths and Misconceptions About Decision-Making Expertise;300
7.1.2.1;8.2.1 Intelligence;301
7.1.2.2;8.2.2 Education and Experience;303
7.1.2.3;8.2.3 Peer Ranking;307
7.1.2.4;8.2.4 Intuition;308
7.1.3;8.3 Chapter Capsule;312
7.2;Personal Expertise in Legal Decision Making;314
7.2.1;9.1 Phase One: Finding;315
7.2.1.1;9.1.1 Still the Messenger;316
7.2.1.2;9.1.2 Bottom-Up Decisions Beat Top-Down Decisions;316
7.2.1.3;9.1.3 Challenge Your Perceptions;318
7.2.1.4;9.1.4 Give Vivid Pictures Time to Fade;319
7.2.1.5;9.1.5 Credit Randomness its Due;320
7.2.1.6;9.1.6 Deal with Attribution Errors Early;321
7.2.1.7;9.1.7 Diversify the Team;322
7.2.1.8;9.1.8 Time Does Not Take Sides;323
7.2.1.9;9.1.9 Align Client Objectives and Attorney Incentives;324
7.2.1.10;9.1.10 Consider Appointing Separate Settlement Counsel;326
7.2.2;9.2 Phase Two: Binding;327
7.2.2.1;9.2.1 Start with Ideals;328
7.2.2.2;9.2.2 Switch Sides to Debias Judgment;329
7.2.2.3;9.2.3 Think Divergently;330
7.2.2.4;9.2.4 Stop Pattern Matching;331
7.2.2.5;9.2.5 Work Well with Others;332
7.2.2.6;9.2.6 Consider Whether a Litigation Attorney or a Trial Attorney is Required;333
7.2.3;9.3 Phase Three: Solving;335
7.2.3.1;9.3.1 Don’t Follow Your Gut;335
7.2.3.2;9.3.2 Search for Disconfirming, Discrepant Facts;337
7.2.3.3;9.3.3 Pay Attention to Base Rates;338
7.2.3.4;9.3.4 Prepare to Justify Your Case;339
7.2.3.5;9.3.5 When in Doubt, Act it Out;340
7.2.3.6;9.3.6 Step Off the Information Treadmill;341
7.2.4;9.4 Phase Four: Testing;342
7.2.4.1;9.4.1 Find Your Inner BATNA;343
7.2.4.2;9.4.2 Separate Facts from Theories, Values and Beliefs;344
7.2.4.3;9.4.3 Enlarge the Pie Before Cutting;345
7.2.4.4;9.4.4 Subjective Fairness Matters;346
7.2.4.5;9.4.5 Think and Communicate Affirmatively;347
7.2.4.6;9.4.6 Depressed People Make Depressing Deals;348
7.2.4.7;9.4.7 Fatigue Stifles Creative Problem Solving;349
7.2.4.8;9.4.8 Use Email Carefully;350
7.2.4.9;9.4.9 Get a Grip on Mongo;352
7.2.5;9.5 Phase Five: Choosing;353
7.2.5.1;9.5.1 Perform a Premortem on Overconfidence;354
7.2.5.2;9.5.2 Take the Outside View;355
7.2.5.3;9.5.3 Keep Positions Aligned with Facts;356
7.2.5.4;9.5.4 Separate the Primary Decision from the Secondary Decision;358
7.2.5.5;9.5.5 Assumptions Were Made to be Explicit and Tested Continuously;359
7.2.5.6;9.5.6 Walk Around the Sunk Cost Trap;359
7.2.5.7;9.5.7 Past Performance is no Guarantee of Future Results;360
7.2.5.8;9.5.8 Funny Things Happen on the Way to the Forum;361
7.2.5.9;9.5.9 Linear Thinking Leads to Impasse;362
7.2.5.10;9.5.10 Appeals are Part of the Settlement Equation;363
7.2.5.11;9.5.11 Moderate the Mediator;364
7.2.6;9.6 Phase Six: Checking;367
7.2.6.1;9.6.1 Pin Yourself Down for Some Real Feedback;368
7.2.6.2;9.6.2 Don’t Just Provide Feedback – Discuss it;369
7.2.6.3;9.6.3 Learn from Surprises;370
7.2.7;9.7 Chapter Capsule;371
7.3;Group Expertise In Legal Decision Making;372
7.3.1;10.1 Deficiencies in Group Decision Making;373
7.3.1.1;10.1.1 Elements of Defective Group Decisions;375
7.3.1.2;10.1.2 Group Polarization and Groupthink;376
7.3.2;10.2 Characteristics of Effective Decision-Making Groups;381
7.3.2.1;10.2.1 High Reliability Organizations (HROs);382
7.3.2.2;10.2.2 Expert Teams;388
7.3.3;10.3 Steps to Improve Group Decision Making;390
7.3.3.1;10.3.1 Ask For Multiple Opinions;390
7.3.3.2;10.3.2 Cross-Pollinate the Team;391
7.3.3.3;10.3.3 Proliferate Team Leaders;392
7.3.3.4;10.3.4 Appoint a Devil’s Advocate;394
7.3.3.5;10.3.5 Seed the Brainstorm;394
7.3.3.6;10.3.6 Promote a Good Fight;396
7.3.3.7;10.3.7 Build Trust;397
7.3.3.8;10.3.8 Reach a Consensus, Don’t Build One;399
7.3.3.9;10.3.9 Schedule a Last Clear Chance Meeting;400
7.3.4;10.4 Chapter Capsule;401
7.4;Peer Review, Client Evaluations and Law Firm Audits;402
7.4.1;11.1 A Brief History of Quality Management in Law Firms;404
7.4.2;11.2 Peer Review in the Medical Field;405
7.4.2.1;11.2.1 The Inception of Medical Peer Review;406
7.4.2.2;11.2.2 The Modern Medical Peer Review System;407
7.4.2.3;11.2.3 Confidentiality of Medical Peer Review;408
7.4.3;11.3 Peer Review in Law Firms;409
7.4.3.1;11.3.1 Priorities in Law Firm Peer Review;409
7.4.3.2;11.3.2 Confidentiality of Attorney Peer Review Proceedings;410
7.4.3.3;11.3.3 Professional Ethics and Attorney-Client Privilege;412
7.4.3.4;11.3.4 The Role of Confidentiality in Peer Review;415
7.4.3.5;11.3.5 The Structure of Law Firm Peer Review;417
7.4.4;11.4 Client Evaluations;418
7.4.4.1;11.4.1 Challenges of Evaluation Design and Analysis;419
7.4.4.2;11.4.2 Sample Questions to Probe for Decision-Making Skills;423
7.4.5;11.5 Assessments and Audits;424
7.4.6;11.6 Chapter Capsule;427
7.5;Conclusion;429
7.6;Appendix: Primary California Dataset Variables;434
7.6.1;A.1 Awards;434
7.6.2;A.2 Settlement Demands and Offers;434
7.6.3;A.3 Case Type;435
7.6.4;A.4 Parties;435
7.6.5;A.5 Attorneys;436
7.6.6;A.6 Nature of Damages;436
7.6.7;A.7 Nature of Alleged Wrong;437
7.6.8;A.8 Forum;437
7.6.9;A.9 Section 998 Offers of Compromise;437
7.6.10;A.10 Insurance;437
7.6.11;A.11 Offer/Demand Ratio;438
7.6.12;A.12 Pre-Trial Dispute Resolution Procedures;438
8;Index;439