1972, December, Pg. 13. The Team Approach in a Multi-Party Action.

• Author: by David Brofman

2 Colo.Law. 13

Colorado Lawyer

1972.

1972, December, Pg. 13.

The Team Approach in a Multi-Party Action

13Vol. 2, No. 2, Pg. 13The Team Approach in a Multi-Party Actionby David BrofmanDavid Brofman is Judge of the Probate Court of Denver.Team representation by lawyers in a multi-party action is probably as old as the practice of law, but rarely is it ever formalized by real planning. It is usually permitted to develop of itself as preparation of the action proceeds.

This can result in overwhelming confusion. There can be no single co-ordinated trial brief and plan of progress; instead, there is often a duplication of effort in research, interview, argument and strategy approach, all of which serve only to further involve the proceedings and result in pyramiding the cost of the litigation.

An Example of SuccessA successful team method approach recently found its way into the records of the Denver Probate Court during the settlement of what was postured to be a bitterly contested will case. Such exposure of the method is rare, since it seldom leaves the offices of the lawyers involved.

The record of logistics became necessary because the Court was called upon to determine the total fee and how it was to be divided between the participating lawyers. Ordinarily, this is usually agreed upon between the attorneys, but in this particular cause the clients were charitable organizations and the fee was sought to be paid by the estate because of benefit to the estate.(fn1)

The matter involved three wills, 34 beneficiaries and 22 lawyers from 14 law firms.

How the team approach was commenced in the particular case and how it developed is reflected in the following summary of testimony of the team "chairman."

The firms and attorneys who represented the charitable beneficiaries and who were to eventually comprise the "team" became involved in the case when they were informed by the executrix of the 1965 will that a later will had been filed in the matter. At a subsequent meeting attended by all the major beneficiaries, several of the smaller charities, the executrix and trustee of the 1965 will and separate counsel for each party, the consensus of opinion was that an attempt should be made to uphold the earlier will. This resulted in the filing of a caveat to the 1970 will. It was also decided that, because of the great...