Many attorneys practice law in different geographic areas because their clients may have legal needs in different jurisdictions and may prefer to use a single attorney for all of their legal work. Additionally, some states are larger than others, so lawyers practicing in those states may find themselves handling cases across a large territory. In smaller communities, where there are fewer local judges and lawyers, judges might be more comfortable with attorneys they see regularly than with out-of-town attorneys.
I have witnessed a few situations in my career in which judges and court officers seemed more supportive of local attorneys than out-of-town attorneys. One day I was litigating a case and one party brought their Texas attorney into the case. This lawyer had a strong southern accent that stood out in the New York courtroom where we were conferenced on a case. The judge inquired about this out-of-town lawyer’s accent and asked where this lawyer was from. The judge mentioned up front that it might be easier to hire a local attorney for this case, although, to be fair, he may have just been thinking of the cost associated with transporting that attorney to court appearances.
At another point in my career, I was tasked with traveling approximately 250 miles to attend a luncheon for attorneys who handle certain types of cases in a city far from home. The judge who handled such cases was present at the luncheon, and attorneys from across the state (and neighboring states) were present at the luncheon since they handled these types of cases in that city. The judge noted at one point that the legal community in this local city was excellent and that the parties might consider retaining a local attorney rather than out-of-town attorneys for cases in this area.
At another point in my career, I encountered court employees who seemed hostile to out-of-town litigants and attorneys. Court staff said local juries and judges would not like an out-of-state party causing harm to a local. As I recall, court staff mentioned that because of my accent, it would be easy for those involved in the legal process to see that I was not from that area, and that it would be a disadvantage if this case went through to the end. Perhaps court staff were embellishing our disadvantages to try to force a settlement, but there was a clear message that out-of-town attorneys would be at a disadvantage.
Once, earlier in my career, we handled an issue on the East Coast for a company based in flyover country. We worked closely with this company’s usual lawyer, also based in the center of the country. When it came time to argue a major motion, my boss asked that company’s regular attorney if he wanted to actively intervene in the case to litigate the issue. The lawyer said that because of his strong accent, he thought it would be best for us to discuss the matter with us while the people of the country debated it. Knowing what I know now about practicing law, I can understand why this attorney assigned us to handle the case since we were local to the area in which this case occurred.
Of course, most judges and court staff value all attorneys equally, and in some situations it can be difficult to know whether an attorney resides in a particular area. However, I have also seen some judges and court staff show a preference for local lawyers, and the judiciary should be vigilant to avoid this wherever possible.
Jordan Rothman is a partner in The Rothman Law Firma full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student debt logsa website explaining how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan by email at jordan@rothma.law.
