Essential for Lawyer's Practice: Strategies for Lawyers in Handling Cases

Author: / Country: Mainland China
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2001-09-01
Features:
IV. Implementation Plan, Refining Strategy
The implementation of a strategic plan is the final stage of strategic planning. Strategy is the choice of action, and action is the execution of strategy. During the implementation phase of a strategic plan, the main focus is on the following aspects:
(1) Develop an implementation plan to make the strategic steps concrete. According to the procedures of litigation or non-litigation legal matters, formulate an implementation plan for each procedure. At the same time, it is necessary to conduct a preventive analysis of potential issues, estimate the potential problems that may arise at each stage or even the next stage, and formulate relevant preventive measures and contingency plans. These measures should be incorporated into the implementation plan of the strategic strategy.
(2) Implement it through appropriate means. First, implement it by advancing the litigation process; second, implement it through non-litigation channels, such as lawyers non-litigation mediation; third, implement it through the actions of the party or client. By changing the original legal behavior or legal relationship of the party or client, the purpose of the strategy can be achieved.
(3) Conduct feedback and regulation. During the implementation process, new problems that arise in the implementation of the strategic plan should be identified in a timely manner. New strategic plans and strategic goals should be proposed in response to changes.
(4) Correct strategic deviations. Due to changes in the subjective and objective conditions of the case, deviations are inevitable during the implementation process and need to be corrected in a timely manner. There is no absolutely correct strategy in the world that is universally applicable. Even a correct strategy may need to be adjusted and improved due to changes in the case situation. This is quite common in legal practice. Through these adjustments, the strategy can be further refined. Even if the strategy has already been implemented, it may still need to be re-planned and implemented. It is particularly important to emphasize that when revising and improving the original strategy, or even re-planning and implementing it, lawyers will face more complex issues and factors. Compared to the original strategic planning, there are new characteristics. This is what lawyers should pay attention to when re-planning and implementing strategies. These characteristics mainly include:
(1) Retrospective analysis. This refers to an objective review and analysis of the conditions, environment, and process of the original strategy. Starting from the beginning of the original strategy, analyze the formulation, argumentation, selection, and implementation of the original strategy in a step-by-step manner to identify errors and their causes.
(2) Non-zero starting point. The original strategy, being in the stage of case acceptance, is in an initial state, which is a zero-start strategy. Re-planning, however, occurs when the case has undergone a certain stage of trial and development, and various situations have changed to varying degrees, making it a non-zero starting point characteristic. A non-zero starting point state requires that:
First, lawyers should strive to correct the original inappropriate strategy as soon as possible. If the original strategy plan continues to be implemented, the loss to the party or client will increase, making it increasingly difficult to re-plan.
Second, lawyers must exercise greater caution when correcting the strategy and re-planning, otherwise it may lead to compounded mistakes with unpredictable consequences.
(3) Dual optimization. The re-planned strategy must have the characteristic of dual optimization:
First, it must be better than the original strategy plan, otherwise there would be no need to re-plan.
Second, it must be further optimized among several strategy plans, following the principle of "when two rights conflict, choose the lesser of the two," in order to minimize losses.