Preiskel & CoPreiskel & Co
Preiskel & Co
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Diversity, Social Responsibility, and Pro Bono
  • Services
    • Corporate
    • Commercial
    • Regulatory
    • Competition & Antitrust
    • Data Protection, Privacy, and Retention
    • Intellectual Property
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Employment
  • Sectors
    • Telecommunications
    • IT, Technology, & Internet
    • Media and Broadcasting
    • Websites, Blogging, & Social Media
    • Film & Television
    • Gambling & Online Gaming
    • Leisure & Retail
    • Energy & Minerals
    • Cryptocurrency & Blockchain
    • Creative Industries
  • People
    • Daniel Preiskel
    • Ronnie Preiskel
    • Tim Cowen
    • Jose Saras
    • Robert Dougans
    • Karthyaeni Vittala
    • Tina Cowen
    • D A T Green
    • Richard Stewart
    • Mor Swiel
    • Ilanit Appelfeld
    • Stephen Dnes
    • Daniel Oakland
    • Robert Harvey
    • Martina Raciti
    • Joanna Coombs-Huang
    • Xavier Prida
    • Stewart White
    • Alison MacFarlane
    • Hannah Leader
    • Peter Dally
    • Antony Corel
    • Sue Warwick
    • Tony Curzon-Price
    • Shardi Shameli
    • Stephen Hornsby
    • Ewelina James
    • Maria Constantin
    • Sophia Yakhno
    • Rachael Machado
  • International
  • Blog
  • News
    • Publications
  • Contact
Menu back  

The Preiskel Blog

Why are litigation letters often so dreadful?

February 11, 2015By David Allen Green

Why are litigation letters often so dreadful?

There is no genre of literature more dismal – more utterly depressing to read – than the letters of litigation solicitors.

Every day hundreds, perhaps thousands, of these wearisome missives are compiled and dispatched.  And many contain the most insincere and heart-sinking language.

The authors of this dreadful correspondence will invariably profess themselves “surprised” or “astonished” (or even “surprised and astonished”).

They are “bewildered” and “confused” and sometimes “shocked”.

If any of these assertions were literally true then the dispute resolution departments of several law firms must be in a constant state of noisy hyper-ventilation.

It would be close to a national medical emergency.

The contentions of the authors are, of course, not true.

The grown men and women typing out such nonsense are not in any elevated sense of excitement.  They are sitting in an office.  They are not convulsing at their desks in giddy emotional turmoil.  In fact, their facial expressions do not change one iota from the paragraph before such claims are made to the paragraph afterwards.

So why do they bother?  What really is the point of such extreme language?  And why do litigators tell routinely their opponents of states of mind which are simply not present?

One reason is because litigation is too often a form of theatre.  Unfortunately, it is commonly part of the adversarial process to seek to belittle or otherwise discomfort the other side.  And it is a habit: the “keyboard warriors” who troll on the internet are nothing to the aggressive letter writers who lurk in litigation departments. They probably could not write in another style if they tried.

But it is all rather pointless.  Sensible lawyers know this.  At Herbert Smith, where I was once a junior litigation solicitor, you were told never to write that you were “surprised”.  One may well be “disappointed”, the head of litigation David Gold would say, but one is never ever surprised at what the other side have come up with.   He was right: surely a litigation lawyer genuinely “surprised” at the other side’s tactical manoeuvre is actually not doing the right job.

Indeed, the more the reliance on emotive language, in general terms, then the weaker the case of the party.  If your case is strong in law and on the facts then one does not need the rhetoric.  The most devastating litigation letters are often no more than a page long; some are just a couple of sentences.

Yet such bombast carries on, for page after page.  The judges do not care for it.  At any hearing, they will go straight to the statements of case (frequently prepared by barristers) and will often ignore the verbiage in the litigation correspondence, and they often seem to silently groan when they are referred to it.  The other side’s lawyer will disregard anything in letters other than what is necessary to understand the current state of the dispute (before writing a similar letter in response).  The only people who seem to want to write in this way are the lawyers themselves.  One suspects they do it to impress their clients.  It is easier to justify charging for a longer letter than a shorter one.

What makes this especially saddening is that pre-action correspondence is crucially important.  Taken seriously it means that bad claims do not get traction and that good claims are settled sooner rather than later.  Perhaps one day litigation solicitors will limit themselves to what the other side and the court need to know for the dispute to be properly resolved.  Few would be disappointed.

 

David Allen Green is head of media and litigation at Preiskel & Co LLP.  The above was originally posted at The Lawyer, and is re-published with kind permission.

Latest Preiskel & Co blog posts
  • Advocate General Opinion on Automated Credit-Scoring & Retention of Insolvency Data
    March 28, 2023
  • White House’s Economic Report of the President sets out a roadmap to improve competition in digital markets
    March 22, 2023
  • Brussels Conference brings in industry leaders to discuss the international antitrust landscape
    March 22, 2023
  • Issues in the UK’s forthcoming Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill
    March 17, 2023
  • Stormy weather for cloud computing in the EU
    March 16, 2023
  • Inmarsat Takeover Provisionally Cleared for Take-Off
    March 10, 2023
  • EDPB’s Feedback on the New EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework
    March 6, 2023
  • UK Data Reform Bill to return to the House of Commons
    March 3, 2023
  • DCMS Publishes New Security and Privacy Principles for App Store Operators and Developers
    February 16, 2023
  • DPO’s Dismissal & Conflicts of Interest Under The EU GDPR – CJEU Ruling
    February 14, 2023
  • ICO – Change of Deadline for Reporting Breach Notifications for Communication Service Providers
    February 6, 2023
  • General EU Requirements for Cookie Banners – EDPB Task Force Report
    January 27, 2023

The Preiskel Blog

  • Advocate General Opinion on Automated Credit-Scoring & Retention of Insolvency Data 28 Mar 2023
  • White House’s Economic Report of the President sets out a roadmap to improve competition in digital markets 22 Mar 2023
  • Brussels Conference brings in industry leaders to discuss the international antitrust landscape 22 Mar 2023
  • Issues in the UK’s forthcoming Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill 17 Mar 2023

Preiskel news

  • Senior Partner, Danny Preiskel, quoted by IT Pro on the costs incurred by MNOs
  • Senior Partner, Danny Preiskel, will be a panellist at GCCM Carrier Community 2023 on IOT
  • Jose Saras and Xavier Prida Awarded First Place as Data Protection Thought Leaders in the UK
  • Ronnie Preiskel chosen to judge 24 May 2023 The Tech Capital Global Awards
Preiskel tweets
  • Advocate General Opinion on Automated Credit-Scoring & Retention of Insolvency Data. Find out more here: https://t.co/bJkvPBvj6F11 hours ago
  • Issues in the UK’s forthcoming Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill. Find out more: https://t.co/3BHP1xq69Y5 days ago
  • White House’s Economic Report of the President sets out a roadmap to improve competition in digital markets. Find o… https://t.co/S7J7sX3kfs6 days ago
Preiskel & Co LLP
4 King's Bench Walk,
Temple,
London
EC4Y 7DL
United Kingdom

Tel: +44 20 7332 5640
Email: info@preiskel.com

Find us on:

TwitterLinkedinMail
© Preiskel & Co LLP 2023 | Site map | Legal notices | Cookie Policy | Privacy