We’re detail oriented. Details often make the difference in cases. But there’s a big difference between picking the details that matter and a deluge of data.
This distinction frequently comes up when we forward a mediation letter or brief to clients. Clients want us to rebut every single (actual or perceived) inaccuracy.
This response begs the question: is rebutting an inaccuracy going to increase the value of the case?
There’s no reason to dispute points that are relatively minor or don’t really affect the value of the case. Engaging on these issues (ironically) infuses them with a measure of validity. For instance, it doesn’t really matter whether a client went kayaking or canoeing while on vacation after an accident. Arguing about this issue makes it seem like it’s actually important.
It’s important to pick your battles. The question is always the same: does fighting about this point have the potential to increase the value of the case? If it does, then we’re going toe to toe with the defendant. If it doesn’t then we’re going to focus on more important issues.