Personal Injury Solicitors: An Alternative to Lying

One option, if you are one of our countries’ personal injury solicitors, that you can make use of whenever you are tempted to invent the facts of your case in order to expedite your victory is to dissuade yourself from doing so and instead exaggerate the facts that work for you and to keep silent about those that do not.

For example, you can emphasize the importance of one case by consistently and constantly mentioning it to the courts. This strategy, according to the great Roman orator Cicero, has the advantage of swelling that fact’s importance in the hearer’s mind, and so will, by its size, block whatever other facts work against you. You must use such a suggestion with caution, however, for if done too much and too frequently, you can belie your original aim of persuading the courts by rousing their suspicion. You can exaggerate a certain fact in a subtle way too. You can drop hints or insinuations, for instance, instead of telling facts outright.

For those facts that work against you, you can choose to keep silent over them and quickly pass them over. Thus, Demosthenes, on his speech “On the Crown,” relegated the legal points against him in the middle of his speech, and quickly dismissed them, knowing that it is on those points that he is most vulnerable.

Personal Injury Claims: Coolness and Sobriety

Many people who file personal injury claims are not just surprised but are positively offended at the seeming inhumanity of the courts. They appear to be impassive, cold, and mechanical, so much so that they appear to be blind to the human element that each case is necessarily characterized with. However, such an assessment is wrong. In fact, judges show their warmth and humanity precisely by acting coolly and soberly.

How so? The reason is simply that only in such an attitude, an attitude of open-mindedness, fair-dealing, and unwillingness to espouse a certain side until the other side has been given a hearing, that judges make real the ultimate goal which entitles them a right to exist: materializing justice.

For what would happen if our judges not only ceased acting coolly and soberly but even became excitable and emotional? Will the defendant still get a fair chance of having his say seeing that the judge had already been inflamed by the plaintiff? Will the plaintiff, in his turn, be given a chance to win his claim, once the judge in his emotional turmoil, automatically dismisses his case because he dislikes the plaintiff’s tone of voice or appearance? Finally, will our courts still be looked up to as symbols of law and social harmony once their inhabitants degenerate from being lofty and intelligent magistrates into emotional and vindictive babies?