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
    • Tina Cowen
    • D A T Green
    • Karthyaeni Vittala
    • Mor Swiel
    • Ilanit Appelfeld
    • Charles Soden-Bird
    • Nick Bromfield
    • Stephen Dnes
    • Daniel Oakland
    • Robert Harvey
    • Martina Raciti
    • Matthew Fox
    • Joanna Coombs-Huang
    • Xavier Prida
    • Mark Clough
    • Stewart White
    • Hannah Leader
    • Peter Dally
    • Antony Corel
    • Sue Warwick
    • Galyna Carey
    • Stephen Hornsby
    • Claire Barraclough
  • 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 blog posts
  • European Commission proposal for Digital Services Act published
    December 15, 2020
  • Facebook faces antitrust lawsuits in the US
    December 11, 2020
  • CMA issues advice for Government on regulatory regime for tech giants
    December 10, 2020
  • New Telecoms Security Law Laid before Parliament for tougher Rules and Fines for Telecoms Companies
    November 25, 2020
  • New Ofcom Consultation on Copper Retirement
    November 23, 2020
  • European Commission releases draft new Standard Contractual Clauses
    November 19, 2020
  • National Security and Investment Bill published
    November 16, 2020
  • Inherited GDPR breach still leads to a record fine for Marriott
    November 3, 2020
  • UK National Data Strategy: a step further away from an adequacy decision under the GDPR?
    October 21, 2020
  • British Airways issued £20 million fine by ICO for data breach
    October 20, 2020
  • Consumer rights in times of COVID-19: key issues to be considered by traders
    September 17, 2020
  • TuneIn limits international radio streaming services following English High Court judgment
    September 16, 2020
The Preiskel Blog
  • European Commission proposal for Digital Services Act published 15 Dec 2020
  • Facebook faces antitrust lawsuits in the US 11 Dec 2020
  • CMA issues advice for Government on regulatory regime for tech giants 10 Dec 2020
  • New Telecoms Security Law Laid before Parliament for tougher Rules and Fines for Telecoms Companies 25 Nov 2020
Preiskel news
  • Tim Cowen to deliver Oxford lecture on 12 February 2021
  • CMA announces investigation into Google Privacy Sandbox
  • Preiskel advised Dubber’s acquistion of UK mobile recording company Speik
  • Tim Cowen to speak at Cornerstone Panel on 15 December 2020
Preiskel tweets
  • We can't wait to hear what @TC_4KBW has to say when he delivers a guest lecture for @OxfordLawFac on searching for… https://t.co/ko8Kk44aTm8 days ago
  • We're delighted to see this announcement, following a complaint from Marketers for an Open Web, advised by @TC_4KBW https://t.co/JG1D3gWwRF8 days ago
  • The @EU_Commission has published its proposal for a Digital Services Act to regulate digital gatekeepers. More det… https://t.co/Q5v8C8E9hq32 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 2021 | Site map | Legal notices | Privacy | Cookie Policy

   

We use essential and analytic cookies on our website. By continuing to use our site, you are agreeing to the use of cookies as set in our Cookie Policy. OKCookie policy