I help clients with both deals and litigation. To be more specific that means buying, selling, financing, leasing, etc. — and going to court. However, those things don’t often overlap. That is, most deals don’t end up in court, and even fewer lawsuits lead to deals.
So, it sometimes turns out that when my deal clients have to go to court in an unrelated matter, or my litigation clients want to do an unrelated deal, they’re unaware that I can help them with the new matter. Putting aside whether that is bad for me, it can be bad for my clients.
I find that lawyers who are experienced in deals know better what to do if the deal ends up in court, and vice versa; lawyers experienced in court know better strategies when negotiating a deal.
As I sometimes explain to clients when I am negotiating a contract, my litigation experience reminds me that some poor bastard might have to defend this deal in court someday. And when I am that poor bastard in court over a failed deal, my transactional experience helps me better understand what the parties were doing, or hoped to be doing, when they negotiated the deal.
What’s the moral to the story? Having experience on both sides of the spectrum can help close the deal and make the case.