Abstract
Attorneys assume four roles when representing clients: advocate, advisor, negotiator and evaluator. Only the role of advocate requires conventional courtroom skills and tactics, while the other three roles of advisor, negotiator and evaluator mandate proficiency in a broader skill set that underpins decision-making expertise. This book assists attorneys, law students and clients to become expert decision makers. It summarizes decades of research regarding attorney-client decision making, introduces new data regarding the effectiveness of attorney-client decisions in adjudicated cases, describes the psychological and institutional factors that affect decision making, explains the legal malpractice and disciplinary consequences of poor quality decision processes and presents more than 65 ideas, methods and systems for improving personal and group decision making
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
(2007, December 3). The Wall Street Journal, p. A8.
- 2.
Many decisions, of course, are high quality decisions with bad outcomes, i.e., good processes accompanied by bad results. The emphasis here on effectiveness promotes closer scrutiny of both poor quality decision making and arguably good quality decision making with adverse outcomes. This emphasis also shifts attention from fault-finding to improvement.
- 3.
Each case scenario is based on an actual case on file with the author. The outcome of subsequent appeals, motions, and settlement negotiations, if any, and the existence and importance of non-economic factors are unknown.
- 4.
Holmes, Oliver Wendell. (1858). The autocrat of the breakfast-table (pp. 16–17). New York: Dutton, Everyman’s Library.
- 5.
Center for Professional Responsibility. (2007). Model rules of professional conduct (p. 1). Chicago, Illinois: American Bar Association.
- 6.
“Decision making has been defined as ‘the ability to gather and integrate information, use sound judgment, identify alternatives, select the best solution and evaluate the consequences.’” Salas, Edward, et al. The making of a dream team: When expert teams do best. In Ericsson, K. Anders, et al. (Eds.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (p. 441). New York: Cambridge University Press. Cf. Tichy, Noel M., and Bennis, Warren G. (2007). Judgment (p. 287). New York: Penguin Group. (“We make a distinction between judgment and decision making”).
- 7.
(2007, February 5). The Wall Street Journal, p. A4. (2007, September 13). The Wall Street Journal, p. A4. (2007, September 18). The Wall Street Journal, p. A6. (2008, March 31). The Wall Street Journal, p. A4. (2008, May 20). The Wall Street Journal, p. A17. (2008, September 23). Palo Alto Daily News, p. 6.
- 8.
(2008, May 20). The Wall Street Journal, p. A17.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kiser, R. (2010). Introduction. In: Beyond Right and Wrong. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03814-3_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03814-3_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-03813-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-03814-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)