How do you deal with an obtuse lawyer?

Sure you do!!
"Because Lawyer Sam axed me too. I don't agree with what it portrays, but I drew it up to make him happy. It's his idea and he's the one that needs to 'splain it to you because it makes no sense to me."

The lawyer is not motivated reach a resolution.

If the issue is resolved the lawyer will not be able to bill the client any longer.

I would try to not give the attorney the copies of the two sketches or you may find yourself "uninvited" to the conference, where the lawyer will innocently forget and only hand the judge the sketch of his opinions. Saw it happen once in a similar case.

Well getting paid up front is a start.

My response would be to point the finger at the Lawyer. It's just not a good answer.

During the trial I actually prepared 3 plans showing three scenarios of title and would not give a final conclusion. In other words, I gave the lawyer enough rope to hang himself with.

I felt confident showing that during a trial. The title experts stated that things could be like this and as I am not a title expert, I am on the hook to show it.

Now, these games will be contrary to the judgment. It just ticks me off and I don't want it to tick off the judge. I'm a people pleaser, especially when those people wear robes.

I'm thinking of adding a CYA note to the sketch. I almost want to take off my surrounds and put the Lawyers name on the plan...

If questioned, "The plaintiffs/defendants attorney requested this plan"

on the plan "As Requested by Attorney XXXX"

Someone who knows all the angles would say that the right person who would be complementary to your case would be a cute lawyer...

Your agreeing or not is not what the client is asking for. He is simply wanting exhibits to show his point of view.

You are his tool to create the exhibits and show is point of view.

Some clients do not take no well and if the door is not fully closed on their view they still march forward, even if there is no way for them to win. Attorneys love billable hours.

Having prepared exhibits for attorneys and other clients before, there are some basic requirements that the plat must show.

When you show the position of a boundary or other disputed or intended location, the deed or public record that refers to that position must be shown.

In other words, whatever the attorney wants you to show, he must furnish you with the public record or deed or whatever document that shows his desires for you to put on the exhibits.

The exhibit can not be drawn from theory alone, there must be actual documents of record or of legal value to show as reference on your exhibit plat.

Be sure to indicate the purpose of your plat in the "PLAT SHOWING" preamble and to not certify anything as fact, but as an exhibit to show documented evidence.

Let the court decide what is and is not.

0.02

>
> Lawyer wants me to prepare two sketches. One showing the results of the interim judgment. The other showing the Lawyer's theory.
>
> In my limited opinion in regards to title, I agree with the Judge. I had the same opinion before the trial started. The Lawyer and I argued this point for over a year before the trial began.
>
> I told the Lawyer I'll prepare the sketches, but if the Judge asks me why I prepared the second sketch that is contrary to the interim decision, I will not have a good answer.

So, just do as he asks, provide a drafting service... prepare two sketches:

One would have the title "interim judgment" and the other would be titled "Lawyer's theory".

If asked, simply say that the title of the drawing reflect the content. If asked for your opinion just say what you have said here.

> If questioned, "The plaintiffs/defendants attorney requested this plan"
>
> on the plan "As Requested by Attorney XXXX"

Exactly what I was going to say.

In an acute manner? 🙂

I was planning on the same, but it is still a dumb answer.

I like the title of the plan idea.

The client just wants to be done. The attorney (contingency fee basis) wants the world.

Thanks for the comments, I was more venting than anything else.

we have missing deeds, there have to be assumptions

the crux of the matter is the question of holding an area call in a series of mid-1800's deeds. the first deed calls for 13 acres, the subsequent deeds call for 16 acres. all the divisions of the parcel add up to 16 acres. then it was the late 1860's and the land was forgotten until recently.

I showed the variations of the boundaries based on the lawyer's [sarcasm]greed[/sarcasm], i mean stellar title analysis. the judge ruled and gave the interim judgment cutting out all the BS both sides were slinging about. the lawyer still wants to push his argument. it's too late, the case is essentially closed pending a final plan.