I find that my clients appreciate my directness. Some potential clients don't like it when I tell them the truth about their case (like no dude, you aren't getting custody of your kids because you were arrested for strangling their mother right in front of them), but most clients want to be told the hard facts so they know what to expect. Sometimes that includes cussing, sometimes it doesn't. I could not care less if another attorney cusses in front of me or to me. Get over it. If you don't want to cuss, don't. But ffs, don't whine like bitch if I do.

Good for you 10:43. In just over a decade of practice I've heard really good lawyers cuss and I've heard really good lawyers refrain from cussing. Putting on your prissy pants and denigrating a whole swath of colleagues because they aren't like you is lame and frankly, not true. I am absolutely certain that in 35 years you've come across some really good attorneys who cuss. Maybe you just didn't know because you're such a prude, they avoid you outside of the courtroom.

My reaction to this topic:I think attorneys should be direct with their clients, and avoid unrealistic expectations. Very true, and that is the honorable, ethical approach.

But that doesn't mean that in order to relate to them on their level and/or show how tough and street we are, that we should use vile profanity. Mild(or even moderate) profanity, for emphasis or to display frustration, is fine. But vile profanity, and used in an aggressive, confrontational manner when addressing or speaking about the opposing side, their lawyer, or the judge, can have some real harsh repercussions.

Most clients don't want that from their lawyer, doctor or accountant, even if that's how the client behaves. Most of them want the professional they engaged to be just that–a professional with some objective distance from the matter.

Continually, and harshly, swearing while interacting with the client is usually accompanied by an approach where it appears the attorney cares too much about the case on an emotional, visceral level, and wants to get down in the dirt with the client and settle the matter against the opposing side with impulse and anger.

Clients value us a lot more, and respect us a lot more, if it appears that we are successful to the point that we don't necessarily need that client, that there will be plenty of other clients to take that one's place, and that we don't need to join their drama(which, if we join the drama, really makes it appear we care so much that we really need them and all their drama, and that we even crave them and their drama).

Clients may initially feel a cathartic release the first time or two this lawyer validates them by behaving this way. But eventually what happens, a lot of the time, is that the lawyer is too closely connected and involved, boundaries are blurred, clients believe they can fall far behind on paying the lawyer(after all, the lawyer is now a "good friend" who will gladly protect the client from all these injustices and indignities regardless of payment), and expectations become really unrealistic to the post the lawyer cannot possibly delver and Bar complaints can ensue, etc.)

That is the real damage of using severe profanity with clients. The concerns go far beyond that it just doesn't appear real dignified.

11:33. Although I have handled Family Law cases, I guess I'm more fortunate than you, and some other posters, in that I really haven't encountered too many instances of vile profanity from the opposing lawyer.

So, for that reason I really don't have a strong opinion about that topic, except that I suppose you are right that we are the professional in the attorney/client relationship, and that objective distance and boundaries should be observed.

The part of your post which does interest me was the brief reference you made to clients falling far behind on their payments and how then carrying them without payment can lead to some real problems.

When I first started practicing someone told me never, ever carry a Family Law client who is not paying, and that any urge to "give back" and not charge full freight should be accomplished by accepting an occasional pro bono case, but to never carry a client who is not pro bono and is expected to be paying via a valid hourly fee arrangement.

This lawyer informed me that when you carry the client, it will seldom be appreciated for very long. They will assume it is the least you can do as they are a poor victim and that the other side is totally at fault for everything. They will then lose respect for you time, your work, your advice, all boundaries will disappear, you will be expected to be constantly available to instantly drop whatever you're doing to file emergency motions whenever they call with the latest drama, that their expectations will become extremely warped, you are likely to eventually get reported to the Bar after you withdraw(and these days they will slander you endlessly on the internet, etc).

I though this was harsh and that all such clients would not behave that way. But you know what? He was absolutely right. I carried a few clients, and I was then treated far worse by them, and respected a lot less, once I started carrying them without payment.

So, I have taken more than my share of pro bono cases. Now, not all of them are super nice and super appreciative but, from my experience, all of them treated me a lot better than paying clients I had who I then let become non-paying clients.

Hey, 11:56, shame on you for triggering real bad memories for me.

Worst client I ever had was a Family Law client I was carrying(with no payment for months) who called crying and screaming about some "emergency."

I dropped everything else I was doing and spent most of that remaining day, as well as the next morning, preparing the emergency motion, and then a petition and affidavit for Order Shortening Time for accelerated hearing, etc.(all of these without a dime in compensation)

When I phoned her to tell her it was all handled, the date of the emergency hearing and everything else, she casually and dismissively, with no apologies whatsoever, told me the matter was resolved(it either was no longer mattered to her for whatever reason, or she settled it directly with her soon-to-be ex, or whatever.) A 15 second phone call or email to me, that none of it was needed anymore, would have saved me hours of work.

Plus she let me know, in no uncertain terms, to respect her time, instructed me of the brief period of time that I was permitted to call on given days of the weak, that I was interrupting her personal time wherein she was on a date with her boyfriend discussing the critical issue of the "status of the relationship." (and BTW, she was only recently separated from her husband and they were in the early stages of a divorce and custody battle, but here she was discussing her and her boyfriend's relationship–who was also just recently separated, and with six children, and now embroiled in his own custody battle and divorce.)

I was flabbergasted. I filed a motion to withdraw. She screamed, abused, and threatened, but I got out. She hired a subsequent lawyer who called for the file contents, input on the case, etc. And you know what, she was able to pay him a $10,000. retainer even though I carried her for so long as she was supposedly "broke and destitute."

Now, 11:56, ten lashes with a wet noddle for you reminding me of that nightmare client.

But, yes, for those of you who are thinking I was stupid and enabled this situation, absolutely correct. I was stupid. I have learned.

12:20–Someone wise once said "nothing is worth less than yesterday's legal services."

And this really applies on domestic cases. Attorney time already expended, wherein the client may be very unhappy with the results, are viewed as worthless by some clients, and some of these clients will insist they will not pay, can't pay, shouldn't have to pay, and to avoid further confrontation lawyers will often drop the issue of payment, which then leads to carrying the client for months and months.

Once such lawyers draw a line in the sand, and will withdraw unless payment made, these non-paying "destitute" clients are often able to come up with $5,000., $10,000. or more(they claim they had to "borrow" it from their parents, or her dad needed to take it from his retirement account, or some other pitiful drama intended to guilt-trip the non-paid attorney.)

But it gets far worse. What does the client then do with that $5,000., or $10,000. or more, that they "borrowed" from their parents. Pay it to their current attorney to keep them on the case? Of course not as the existing attorney will apply it to unpaid past services that the client is very unhappy with.

Instead the money will be paid for a new attorney, for new work, and for new and different results(or so the client thinks).

And often this dynamic is partly the fault of the new attorney who boasts and brags how great they are and that they will clean up the mess created by the last lawyer, and get the matter handled properly, etc. And after all that aggressive posturing to get the client to pay them the $10,000., the new lawyer largely ignores the case once the check clears, appears at court marginally prepared at best, and the case proceeds as it always had, and how the prior, honest, non-paid attorney predicted it would proceed.

So @11:37, I'm in your boat. You and me should start a pact.

She was an outstanding Judge and is a fine person. A real shame.

Thank McConnell for that