Litigation lawyer – who is that?

As part of summing up the upcoming year, and even more so the last 15 years of my active litigation practice, I have been thinking about what we actually do in the Hoogells litigation team. Who is a litigator?

AI indicated right away that a litigator is a specialist in the field of law who deals with representing clients in court cases and conducting proceedings before courts. A litigator has knowledge of court procedures, legal regulations, and the ability to argue and negotiate.

Basically, yes – but it is a rather big simplification.

Template no. 27 if we want an appeal, sample letter no. 4 for a lawsuit – it is probably obvious, because we have knowledge of court procedures and legal regulations. In other specializations of law it is likely similar – lease agreement- template no. 14, company agreement – template no. 19 or no. 19bis. Everything readily available – but it doesn’t work like that.

I would add, in order to humanize the above definition, that as part of our work we also need to:

1. decode and understand the factual situation of the case, which in most cases we did not create and we learn about it from third parties, and then get a feel of it and become a part of it;
2. file a procedural document, which must be brought to existence each time, both factually and legally – thoughtless use of templates may result in the court using a template for return / rejection / or for dismissal;
3. before submitting the document, it should be reread several times and analysed in order to see what has been written and what has not, taking into account that the principle of the burden of proof can be used to resolve any dispute;
4. think about point c. during the journey of the document to the court or to the post office, after sending it, after delivery to the court and before the next hearing, as well as wondering whether the document has reached the court – in accordance with the principle that everything can start at the post office, but everything can also end there;
5. before the hearing, read and prepare everything again (this time with all the documents in the case, from everyone and the court) – and recreate everything again before the next hearing, depending on how long the break is between the hearings – after months or years, so as to be able to immerse yourself in the case again;
6. at the hearing, conduct a discussion (or battle) with the court, the opponent and the witness (expert) – at the same time asking questions and remembering what they replied, in order to immediately ask further questions or refute arguments regarding what they said or did not say, or, alternatively, with reference to what they did not say or did say (as they sometimes claim);
7. repeat the activities from points a. to f. with varying intensity until the final decision in the case is reached.

So, depending on the circumstances, the case becomes our challenge, enemy, friend, nightmare, fulfillment, etc., and certainly always a faithful companion. All this – which may be incomprehensible – still positively motivates us to act.

If there is a thrill, adrenaline and positive anxiety before every trial, it means that all this still works. For this to happen, you need all of the following: constitution of an ox, Olympian calm, angelic patience and, of course, what the AI ​​suggested.