Your statement...

"I guess it's a fine balance...play it tough, "milk" the client a little, but not meore than they are willing to throw at their defense, then reach a deal that is not too painful."...

Although crued it is a correct despcription of the facts of life in the practice of law, and I am glad that you capiche the necessity of the dynamics operating in the system...

Law is said to be a RULE OF REASON DIRECTED TO THE COMMON GOOD. The miracle of the our Constitution is that the founding fathers who were keenly aware of the tyrany of KINGS, CALIPHS, PRESIDENTS, ECT., made the LAW as the repository of of power in our society.

Thus we don't shoot each other for generations like Hatfields and Mcoys, or have revolutions every few decades or so like Bosnia, Iran, South Africa, Somalia, etc. etc., whenever we have disputes. We dump them in the lap of the Courts and while we simmer for few years, we ultimately swallow hard and live by the judgment of others, who by an large are dedicated to the RULE OF LAW and great and Honorable people, work hard and deserve every penney of compensation they get...

EDIG'S case is a vivid testement to the validity of the underlying philosophy; and all jokes about lawyers notwithstanding, EDIG as a small company who was robbed and beaten to a pulp before DM came on the scene stands a chance to finally making it because of what DM is doing for it in the last 3 years. And believe me when I say DM had no obligation to do this, and to great extent they agreed because it was the right thing to do. Sure they may make millions in fees, but they desereve every darn cent of it...

And that is my sermon for the month...

GLTA; WE ARE EVER SO CLOSE TO BEING THERE...Lol...

Gil...