The importance of communicating with clients before and after trial Our lawyers have conflicts with clients in their daily work. In some cases, there have even been incidents in which lawyers have been seriously injured. There are many factors involved, the most important of which is the poor communication between the lawyer and the client. The following is a description of the relevant matters: First, the client has the need to understand the facts of the case. 2. The lawyer has the need to introduce the case with the client. These are my thoughts on the pre-trial and post-trial communication between lawyers and clients. This is definitely my one-sided statement, and bias is certainly inevitable. I think it's a matter of how lawyers work. It is good to give it fishing. [Cover your face] [Teeth] [Laughs]

<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" > Our lawyers have conflicts with their clients in their daily work. In some cases, there have even been incidents in which lawyers have been seriously injured. There are many factors involved, the most important of which is the poor communication between the lawyer and the client. The following is a description of the relevant matters:</h1>

<h1 class = "pgc-h-arrow-right" > First, the client has a need to know the facts of the case. </h1>

A lawyer is the client's agent and handles relevant legal affairs on behalf of the client. The subject of responsibility for legal affairs is the client, and the client has a close interest in the case. The client needs to understand the specific circumstances of the case and the progress of the case.

Some clients reflect that when the lawyer does not take over the case, he is very enthusiastic, and when he takes over the case fee, he will ignore the client, the client is not willing to answer the relevant questions, the client wants to meet, and the lawyer is not willing to meet with the client. Among them, it is advisable that some clients have to see the lawyer every day, which is very annoying in individual cases; I think that in general, the lawyers have done something in this regard that is really not in place, and there are indeed acts of courtesy before and after.

<h1 class= "pgc-h-arrow-right" > second, the lawyer has the need to introduce the case with the client. </h1>

a. The lawyer is a part-time worker who is a client and has the obligation to report the case to the client in a timely manner.

b. Lawyers can obtain specific details and evidentiary materials of the case when communicating with clients more, which is conducive to lawyers handling cases.

c. Lawyers communicate with clients to make clients feel that handling cases is not as simple as he thinks, and makes him feel that lawyers' agency work is also very hard.

Clients basically have no legal qualities to conduct litigation, and their understanding of the case is limited: as the plaintiff, they often think that the case must be won, and as the defendant, they think that they cannot lose. In fact, these perceptions are often biased. What is found in court is a legal fact, not an objective fact. Although it is an objective fact, it will not be a legal fact without valid evidence that complies with the law. In addition, the conduct must comply with the law in order to be upheld by the court, otherwise the court will not support it. Counsel representing a litigant must be conducted in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Code of Procedure in order to be supported by the court, whether in terms of substantive or procedural rights. Clients tend to pay attention only to the substantive aspects of the rights and not to the procedural aspects. Proceedings serve substantive and procedural rights.

d. The pretrial lawyer's communication with the client will make a prejudgment.

The lawyer's communication with the client before the trial can allow the client to have a preliminary prejudgment of the case, so that the pre-trial expectations for the case are too high, and the occurrence of serious inconsistencies with the expectations found during the trial. This is a process of adapting to the customer, or it can be said to be a warm-up process.

Here I would like to remind you that some lawyers have a big package when accepting a case, and the result is that they will be exposed when the trial is about to be held, which is an act of deceiving the client. I'm talking about pre-trial communication with clients, and there is no such thing. It is the lawyer who has explained the situation when accepting the case, but the client still has a high expectation in his heart.

e. Communication in court.

My point is that the client should be present at the first hearing, the client knows the details of the case best, and the client can fully explain it to avoid the embarrassment of the lawyer not understanding the specific situation. There are pros and cons to the presence of customers. I used to try to avoid clients. Through the analysis and research, I think that when the first court session, the client should be present, and when the court is held later, whether the client is present or not is decided by the client himself.

The downside of a customer's presence is that the customer is talking nonsense in court. If the customer talks nonsense, it will lead to difficulties in the lawsuit, and even lose the lawsuit.

The practice of some lawyers is to rehearse the trial in advance and instruct the client on what to say in court.

Now that the state is cracking down on false litigation, it is possible that the lawyer's rehearsal before the trial will invite the risk of being prosecuted for false litigation. Therefore, I do not advocate such behavior as lawyers rehearsing with their clients before court. If the lawyer instructs the client to make a false statement during the pretrial rehearsal process, if the judicial department pursues it, the client will first betray you, and sometimes the lawyer does not say it, it is likely that the client will also add oil and vinegar to you, and the judicial organ will believe your words or believe the customer's words? I think they will believe what the customer says.

The relevant evidentiary materials shall be handed over to the court by the client at trial to prevent the risk of false litigation. Because the evidence is the client's, the lawyer does not know the authenticity of the evidence, only the client himself knows the authenticity of the evidence.

I coordinated the client's statement in court in advance, let the lawyer speak first, the lawyer spoke from the perspective of substantive law and procedural law, and when the lawyer did not understand the specific aspects of the case, the client then stated it. The same is true for cross-examination of evidence. It is not easy to admit that you have to bear the corresponding legal consequences.

During the trial, the lawyer communicates with the client on the spot to determine the way to handle the case. When a case is expressed, it should be carried out by the customer.

f. Post-trial lawyer-client communication.

After the trial, especially if the client does not participate in the trial, the lawyer should have the necessary communication with the client. Report on the progress of the case, prejudge the case, what new problems have occurred, and how to deal with it? Find out how to deal with the case, and what are your expectations for the outcome of the case?

G. The communication between lawyers and clients should preferably be carried out in a way that can be tangible.

Interview transcripts, WeChat records, voice records, mobile phone SMS records, e-mail mailboxes, audio and video recordings are used.

These methods are first of all a concrete process of lawyers' work; secondly, they are also an effective means to prevent disputes between lawyers and clients.

<h1 class= "pgc-h-arrow-right" > The above is my reflection on the pre-trial and post-trial communication between lawyers and clients. This is definitely my one-sided statement, and bias is certainly inevitable. I think it's a matter of how lawyers work. It is good to give it fishing. [Cover your face] [Teeth] [Laughs].</h1>