Business Law, Commercial Litigation and International Business Law

We offer over 25 years experience in business, business law, commercial litigation and international business. As well as, corporate representation and business formation, including contracts and intellectual property.



Business Law, Commercial Litigation and International Business Law

21 February 2012

20 February 2012

BIG CASES DON’T JUST HAPPEN TO BIG, BAD CLIENTS


I.  Size Does Not matter. 

            An understandable, but false, assumption of some potential law firm clients is that a small case will cost less than a big one. After all, if I buy a small coffee I expect to pay less than I would pay for a larger size, so why do legal fees not adjust to the size of the case? 

            Well, first of all, they do in some cases. Legal fees can track the size of the deal in transactional matters; that is, where the parties are negotiating a deal and entering into contracts re same. For example, if the transaction involved the sale of a radio or TV station then the complexity of the work and the downside risk compel the parties to retain experts and do work in a number of areas, e.g. federal and state licenses, legislative and government agency support, appraisal, etc. So, if you are buying or selling  a coffee house then you can expect the legal fees to be much less than if you are buying or selling a semi-conductor company.  But, the cases discussed in this article are not the transactional ones, but dispute and litigation matters. 

            Litigation cases can be incredibly and aggravating “inelastic,” as to the size of the case, i.e. what is at stake. (“inelastic” is a term from economics price theory which means, ceteris paribas,[1] that a change in price will not cause a significant impact on sales. For example, automobile sales may be highly elastic to price changes while changes in the price of sale may not be. If your local car dealer lowered car price by 20% you might be motivated to buy – or try to – but 20% off the cost of salt, say, from $1.00 to 80 cents may not motivate the typical consumer.   

            Phoenix and Maricopa County Arizona – in fact the entire State of Arizona have a large number of small businesses with all types of cases, almost beyond imagination – especially the client’s imagination because the client does not deal with these problems all day-every day. The cases may vary from trying to get paid on an account, say, in the amount of $5,000.00 to comparatively esoteric and complex claims for breach of trade secrets statutes and, perhaps, even a Confidentiality and Non-CompetitionAgreement with key employees, which where enforceable (as they are in Arizona) are extremely valuable to the company and every small business with key employees should have one.[2]     

            Take a $5,000 collection case. In Arizona cases above $2,500 are too large for the  “Small Claims” division where  you have the “parties only” with no lawyers allowed (the “small claims court like the People’s Court). While, in Arizona, cases under $10,000 are still in Justice Court, therefore heard by a Justice of the Peace (which in Arizona may not have attended law school) upon the request of either party the Rules of Civil procedure and the Rules of Evidence may apply. We could write a whole article, if not a book, on the impact of these Rules on the dispute resolution process, but the short version is that applying the Rules of Civil Procedure means that a certain course of conduct must be followed work must be done in preparation of trial. This can include “disclosure statements’ deposition, etc., pre-trial memoranda, etc. etc.. and, applying the Rules of evidence means that a non-represented part can be “lawyered to death” due to the rules against hearsay, authentication of documents, etc. Generally, evidentiary rules require that the person who saw or has first-hand knowledge about the event or document must be in court and subject to cross-examination. This means witnesses may be called, subpoenas issued and discovery requests may be made resulting in more depositions, etc. 

            The point of the above hypothetical is to show that the cost of the case to the litigants is not  a function of the case, but its forum and the Rules that apply.  One can only imagine what happens to the cost of civil action where the case is more complex with many legal claims, parties, witnesses, and documents. 

            Conversely, a large case in terms of “dollar denomination” may be relatively inexpensive compared to a smaller but more complex action. For example, while as discussed, above a small case can get complex and expensive, the cost of a “million dollar” collection case to recover monies due on a promissory note (which can be difficult to defend) can be “inconsequential” (i.e. much, much less) compared to the fees necessary to enforce claims for “tortious interference with contract or businesses expectancy,” breach of fiduciary duty, or misrepresentation claims, etc. (“Claims”)[3] , which many business owners have not even heard of prior to the action.  

II. Conclusion.  

            As shown, the cost of litigation is not a factor of the size of the case but of the type of case, including the kind of Claims and the Rules that apply. So, somewhat counter-intuitively, a $100,000 breach of fiduciary duty case may cost less than a $1,000,000 collection case.

The Law Offices of Donald W. Hudspeth, P.C.
Business Law, Commercial Litigation & International Business Law www.AZBUSLAW.com – 866-696-2033 – TheFirm@azbuslaw.com
“The Business of Our Firm is Business”


[1] “Ceteris Paribas” is econo-speak for “all other things being equal. You get a lot of ceteris paribas in economic studies. Of course the fact that all other things never are equal is a problem for the real world, not the professors. 
[2] I have written about the value of non-competition agreements in other articles, which are available upon request. 
[3] Roughly, tortious interference with contract or expectancy is the act of attempting to terminate an existing contract and make your own sale to the customer. Many sales persons do not even know this can be seriously unlawfully, with punitive damages awarded, especially where inside knowledge or special, targeted incentives  are offered, e.g. special offer of 20% to existing customers of XYZ company only using as mailing list a confidential customer list of the target company. Breach of fiduciary duty I the highest duty imposed at law, for example, the duty employees and partners owe the company and their partners to act with the highest standard of loyalty, honesty, trustworthiness and integrity.   Employees have this duty? Yep. Who knew?    

DO’S AND DON’TS ON HOW TO USE GOOGLE FOR LEGAL WORK

A few quick pointers on how to use Google (or Bing or Yahoo, Firefox, etc) for legal information.

Do’s:
1. Do: Use Google for a quick definition of terms. Be aware it is best to have a law degree and several years experience to fully understand the ramifications of the definition. 

2. Do:  use Google for general information about a subject –so that you can know what questions to ask – to become a better consumer of legal work and lawyer services

3. Do: In a stretch you can even use Google to see what types of contracts or documents are used in a given situation, what they look like and the topics they might cover. You might want to call a law office or two to determine which contracts you need so you don’t research the wrong contracts. 

Don’ts:
1. Don’t use general information as legal advice. Here are some of the reasons why:

A. Different Facts Mean Different Results: Any lawyer or law professor can tell you that ONE FACT can change the entire outcome of a case. For example, consider the case that held that McDonald’s was liable for the wrongful death in an automobile accident caused by of its employees who worked too much overtime, even though the worker had volunteered for same. Why? Is a business now required to meddle into its employees’ lives? And, even if we wanted that, realistically, could the business actually know how each of its employees was feeling on a particular day and whether that employee was able to drive normally?  And, what’s “normal” for that employee – or anyone?  The critical fact here was that the employee was a minor and a student.  That one fact changed the outcome. 

B. Your Case is Unique. Your case is not like anyone else’s case. Each case is unique. General rules may not apply. General information is not “advice.” Advice is based on your documents, your facts and your circumstances. Advice is tailored to your specific facts – and that is what you need for something as important as a legal matter. Legal issues can be – and often are – life altering.

C. You are Unique.  Representation needs to be tailored to your personal needs and motivations. For you the case may be in the ordinary course of business, regrettable, but fairly routine. For someone else it may be simply overwhelming due to personal or family health issues. Some clients thrive on legal issues. Others do not. I have had clients walk away from very strong cases with substantial money at stake because the husband was dying of cancer and ill from chemotherapy and the wife was just overwhelmed by that and other personal issues. So the question of what we do is different than what can be done. What will be done depends on the consultation between attorney and client. In short the representation can be tailored to your needs.   

D. Legal Advice is not “One Size Fits All.” Except to help you ask questions, general information may be no more valuable to you in your particular matter than a pair of shoes off the rack may be for a particular size and social situation. The advice needs to be suitable for what you are doing, and also fit you, your circumstances and your objectives.

E. The Law Varies from State to State. Also, as you may have gleaned by listening to the news, legal decisions are not consistent but vary from one jurisdiction to another which means that the law from one state to another may and almost always does vary.  Some states do not even have the same legal claims as others. For example, Arizona is liberal on negligent misrepresentation claims; New York and Delaware are not. In fact contracts are drafted to use or avoid the laws of certain states.  Much of this knowledge would be beyond the interest, knowledge and expertise of many non-business attorneys, let alone a lay person.   
  
F. Lawyers are not Licensed to Practice or Have knowledge of Other State Law: Last but not least, attorneys are licensed by state and are required and only required to pass the State Bar of the state they live in. So, advice offline may not only be accurate for your facts, and in your jurisdiction, but may be given by a lawyer who is not licensed in or knowledgeable about the laws of your state.   

2. Don’t use form contracts from other matters and jurisdictions.

            A.   A Form is Not a Legal Contract for You. For the same reason as online information is not legal advice, an online form is not a legal contract that you just want to use without an attorney’s review. First, it may be the wrong agreement, Second, as discussed above, the contract may not even be valid, as written, in your state. It may and probably will have been written by a lawyer who does not practice law in your state. If it has been written by a non lawyer, it has included all legal advice or questions, to avoid the unauthorized practice of law, if a non-lawyer is giving you legal advice, beware. 

B. The Contract Needs to Be Tailored for You. Moreover, a stock contract downloaded from a website will not tailor to your specific needs. Most of the time to make the contract work, regardless of who buys it, i.e.  whichever side of the transaction buys it, the contract will be written “down the middle” on many key points –but some of those key points may be critical to your interests and should be discussed. Or, worse, the form contract may just eliminate many issues which need to be covered; these issues may arise later at much greater cost and harm, and, unaddressed in any agreement, be litigated by the parties. (Business brokers’ contracts are infamous for this. The broker has no incentive to resolve issues; he or she gets paid on commission of advocacy/ only if the deal is done.) 

C. A Form Contract Ignores the Necessity of Advocacy/ only and therefore Loses the  Benefits. The practice of law is always advocacy; that is, the lawyer and your contract should serve your interests as much as possible. Many times the success or failure of a venture can depend on the strength of the contract and it’s accompanying organizational documents. And, that strength comes from your consultation with the lawyer about the special facts and objectives of your company, its transactions and having a contract written accordingly. For example, consider a simple contract for the sale of a phone. A form contract may lack certain provisions that could have been added to serve your special needs – like the right to repossess the phone if it’s not paid for, and the agreed right of peaceful entry to do so. Obviously, the power to shut down a business by repossessing its phone system is great leverage to get paid.  Alternatively, the contract could have provisions that are directly adverse to you and which need to be removed or modified. A common mistake is to use the contract a lawyer drafted in another deal without having it reviewed and tailored for your deal. It may look okay, but be 180 degrees from what you want.  

            D. You May Think You Know What You Are Reading, but You Don’t.  Clients think that because a contract is in English that they can read, understand and negotiate the contract. This assumption is virtually always false. First, legal terms have special meanings, and those meanings vary in the context and may interrelate with other terms in the contract or document.  A lawyer would know to go immediately to the indemnity section if he sees a damages or limitation of remedies section. A non-lawyer justifiably may not know what I am talking about. 

            E. Non-Lawyers Will Not Know What’s Missing. Also, clients often fall into what I call the “documents look OK to me fallacy.”  They read and negotiate only what is in the contract, not realizing that there could be pages of provisions which should be in the contract which would protect them or advance their interests. But the other side doesn’t want those provisions in there because they are adverse to their client, and has no obligation to put them in, and without a lawyer, you won’t even know they are missing. This is common in business sales and other forms of sales agreements. Additionally, clients leave themselves open to huge breach of warranty, consequential damages and punitive damages claims and awards that could be eliminated or mitigated by good drafting. For example, the defective bidding software that cost its purchaser $1.5 million in damages to a defecting the software it under-bid a job which the purchaser then won and had to complete at a loss. When the purchaser sued, its damages were limited to the cost of the software, about $129.95. Reason: good legal drafting. And, no off the shelf contract that I have seen does a good job of analyzing the situation and drafting to maximize the possible benefits and mitigate the possible detriments of the deal. This takes a little time and effort by the client and the attorney but is overall, cost-effective, especially where the cost of the sales or employment contract – or other agreement – is spread over many sales or employees.     
Conclusion.
            Unfortunately, about two out of three new clients come to our firm because they have a problem with their signed contract or legal documentation, too late, they have received the previously unconsidered information that their contract does not have a jurisdictional provision (so they are being sued in Idaho); their contract doesn’t allow for interest in storage fees (so they are paying interest and storage but can’t charge the client for them); the star sales person is stealing clients but there is no confidentiality and non-competition agreement in place this is another example where the law varies: such contracts are almost impossible to enforce in California but if well-written can be very enforceable in Arizona); the LLC does not have an Operating Agreement ( so the members are arguing over how to value the LLC interest in a buyout situation); the company does not have buy-sell agreement setting forth the conditions and terms under which business partners may part company (So money which might have been spent on “business as usual” after or orderly split is spent on unproductive fighting). These are a few examples of some common problems caused by mistaking general information for legal advice and forms for suitable contracts.  

            I could go on, but I’m sure you see the point. As Lincoln said “He who would be his own lawyer has a fool for a client.” And, forgive me if this sounds harsh but you really have no idea what a fool you are making of yourself if you practice do-it-yourself law.  Some of my clients are justifiably proud of their expertise in running their businesses, but make the mistake of believing that their genius allows them to understand what has taken me decades to learn. I can no more run my clients’ businesses than they can practice law. Every day I see matters which could have been handled as brief, inexpensive office visits before the deal, but which later are the subject of time-consuming and expensive litigation. Worse, I see lives ruined because many mistakes are so devastating the client cannot recover.  I know that time and money are always scarce for business owners, but that is the very reason to spend time and money on loss prevention. Having good contracts and legal organization will more than pay for itself – in fact, probably in just one sale or transaction.  

The Law Offices of Donald W. Hudspeth, P.C.
Business Law, Commercial Litigation & International Business Law www.AZBUSLAW.com – 866-696-2033 – TheFirm@azbuslaw.com
“The Business of Our Firm is Business”
        

LEGAL EVENTS AND LEGAL DOCUMENTS




Over the years in my legal practice I have noticed that, much as I would wish, advise, and preach to the contrary, most of my business law clients come to the firm, not because they have recognized a need and seek to avoid or prevent some problem or event from happening, but in response to that problem or event after it has occurred.  In other words, the demand for our legal services is reactive, not preventative.

This response-based, as opposed to prevention-based, approach to legal services has several consequences to and for the firm and the client:

1. Legal matters are handled at the dispute level rather than the transaction level.
2. The cause of the dispute is often due to the lack, or legal inadequacy of, the underlying business formational or transactional documents. And now that the event has occurred the client has at least three problems. 

A. The loss of merits, advantage, even remedy, caused by bad documentation,
B.  The exponentially greater cost of “cure” versus “prevention,” and
C.  Fixing the bad documentation so the problem will not arise again.

Loss of Merits, Advantage or Remedy.
Just a few of many examples of the loss of merits, advantage or remedy are: 

A.  The failure to have a well drafted key person employee confidentiality and non-competition agreement (in states like Arizona which allow same). The consequences or benefits of having same can be huge, e.g. my printing company client who weathered the Great Recession only to have his six year star sales person leave and do $1,116,000.00 in business in six months with the business clients because the company had an expired, do-in-yourself confidentiality agreement (only).[1]

B. Potential liability under a defective software program for lost profits of $1.5 million when by law the consequential damages remedy could have been limited to the cost of the software, $139.95.  

C.  Business owner termination and separation disputes, known in the trade as “partnership disputes” (although the owners may be in fact corporate shareholders or LLC members) which can last a year and cost, say, $50-100,000.00 to litigate whether a buy out of the existing “partner” will occur at all and another six months to a year, and $50-$100,000.00 more to hire experts and litigate the price.  And this agony can be easily and cheaply avoided by having a “shareholders agreement” (for corporations) or “buy-sell agreement (in general) that deals with dissociation issues (typical causes for buy-out would be divorce (purchase from ex-spouse), disability, death, and sometimes termination of employment). Our firm typically charges $1250-$1500 base fee for such documents. Many law firms with bigger clients may charge $5,000 and up, but at anywhere near these prices the documentation is a much better bargain than the event.  

Litigation versus Prevention.
As noted in the above examples, the cost of bad documentation can be extreme, especially if the cost of litigation is added to the loss. For example, in the case of the expired confidentiality agreement, we tried to “bootstrap” that agreement into a non-competition agreement by focusing on the statutorily as well as contract protected customer list and proprietary information, but this argument failed at the trial level – after the client spent more than $100,000.00 in attorneys’ fees, and to my knowledge the client lost on appeal by an appellate firm. The point here is that some problems just cannot be fixed after the fact and the cost to attempt to do so can be astronomical.

This is not to say that good documentation prevents or eliminates bad events or “misconduct.” An employee or partner or other contract party who is going to “act out” may do so regardless of what the contract says. However, this firm reviews and advises employees, business owners and contract parties before they leave or take a certain action under a contract so they can know what to expect. Sometimes this changes the outcome.   In any case, good documentation creates or adds to clarity and certainty which can bring the matter to a close more quickly at less cost. So, good documentation may not only prevent the harm but reduce the cost of dealing with the harm.

Fixing the Organizational or Contract Problem.  
As we have been discussing, it is a much better idea “to close the barn door before the cows get out.” This is such common sense that it is difficult, frustrating and “saddening” to me as a business lawyer to see the great harm and costs that could have been prevented. But, in the event a negative incident occurs the client should not stop or limit the law firm representation to just the matter at hand, but also should have the firm fix the underlying documentation problem; that is deal with both the event and the documents –put yet another way to fix the problem and its cause. 

“Overstating and oversimplifying…” (if you meet with me you will hear me say that a lot) most small business, and many national business documents are crap, either in general or under Arizona law. Clients often go Online to obtain legal advice and legal forms, or just as often use their old employers’ or someone else’s form. (but “Who says the document is good just because they use it?)  Overstating and oversimplifying again, they typically get neither advice nor good documents. They do not get “advice” because advice must be tailored to specific client facts and needs (one fact can change everything) and they do not get a good contract because, among other things, the law varies from state to state. In the attempt to make one size fit all, it may not fit any client well.[2]  

Conclusion.    
You can save your business and yourself time, money and aggravation by thinking proactively. Now, when you don’t have legal problems is the time to have your legal “audit,” “check-up,” or “review” – whatever you want to call it.  Planning for security and growth is fun; dealing with problems aggravated by poor planning is not.  This is particularly important in the predatory world we live in today, where competitors, contract parties, and customers may want you to make mistakes so that they can capitalize on your errors and omissions. 

So, call us. Let’s get your legal house in order.

The Law Offices of Donald W. Hudspeth, P.C.
Business Law, Commercial Litigation & International Business Law
www.AZBUSLAW.com – 866-696-2033 – TheFirm@azbuslaw.com
“The Business of Our Firm is Business”


[1] Clients appear to think that because law is in English that they know what they are doing. They almost never do and lose great benefits, both proactive and protective. 
[2] I have written on this topic in my article on “Dos and Don’t’s on Using Google for Legal Matters.