Last night, I had dinner with some friends. We were discussing litigation. Specifically, we were discussing the need to be heard.
A few years ago, I was involved in a small dispute between a landlord and tenant. As is often, but not always the case, I was representing a landlord. This just happened to be a security deposit dispute. This case involved the usual issues: damage to the apartment and cost to repair. The plaintiff was pro se and insisted she did not damage the apartment. She was employed as a hotel maid.
I tried everything to negotiate a settlement in the case with the plaintiff. Using my best reasoning skills, I spent a half hour trying to negotiate a fair proposal and avoid a hearing.
The plaintiff heard what I was saying in the hallway that day but she wasn’t willing to settle.
Why?
In the plaintiff’s own words: “I paid my filing fee, I want the judge to hear this.”
So we went into court and tried the case.
In practice, I see the need to be heard as one of the fundamental needs/wants/hopes of all parties. It plays out everywhere from divorces to personal injury cases to real estate closings. Sometimes it is more important for a party to be heard than it is to be validated.
From what I’ve observed, to most clients, it doesn’t matter who hears the case. It doesn’t matter the title of the person sitting at the head of the table. The person could be a judge, magistrate, JTR, housing specialist, family relations officer, an ATR or a private trained mediator.
Most of the time the only thing that matters is that the person listens. That’s one of the reasons mediation tends to resolve cases.
In my case the magistrate’s ruling $23 more in favor of my client than my best offer to the pro se plaintiff. So in the end, the pro se plaintiff spent $23 to be heard. A small price to pay for being heard in today’s noisy world where it’s often hard to find anyone who will listen.