Lawyers are busy people who often need to juggle court appearances with obligations in other cases and personal responsibilities. As a result, lawyers frequently need to request adjournments so they can balance all of their obligations. Depending on the court, lawyers may need to secure the consent of counsel to adjourn a court appearance or another type of case obligation. In most instances, adjournments should be granted as a matter of professional courtesy and adjournments should not be conditioned on substantive concessions in a case.
Earlier in my career, I was involved in a landlord-tenant matter, and the court scheduled a hearing in the case on short notice. The hearing was scheduled for right in the middle of when I was set to take a much-needed vacation. As a result, I requested that my adversary consent to an adjournment of just one week so I could return from the vacation and appear at the conference when I did not have any conflicts with my schedule.
To my surprise, my adversary would only consent to a one-week adjournment if I made substantive concessions in the matter. I thought this was extremely discourteous. The types of concessions my adversary wanted would put my client in a much more difficult position defending the matter. Like any good lawyer looking out for the client’s best interest, I decided not to accept the adjournment if it was conditioned on concessions that could hurt my client later in the case.
LexisNexis Practical Guidance Rolls Out Dedicated Practice Area for AI & Technology
The new generation of AI-related legal issues are inherently cross-disciplinary, implicating corporate law, intellectual property, data privacy, employment, corporate governance and regulatory compliance.
I then asked the court for permission to adjourn the conference to a later date without my adversary’s permission. The court declined to grant the adjournment since the rules of that judge specifically required the consent of all parties to adjourn an appearance. Not wanting to miss the conference, and unable to find coverage to attend the scheduled appearance, I ended up adjusting my vacation so I was able to appear at the conference.
When I saw my adversary face to face he related that he thought I would not be at the conference since I had vacation planned for the time when the conference was scheduled. I conveyed that I had to change my vacation plans in order to attend the conference because my adversary did not consent to the adjournment. My adversary seemed uncomfortable with the fact that I had to change my plans because he had failed to give his consent, and he should have just consented to the adjournment unconditionally in the first place.
One of the main reasons lawyers should just consent to adjournments without making conditions is that the shoe may be on the other foot at some other point in the case. I have had numerous instances in my career when adversaries have given me a hard time about adjournments and then later asked for adjournments themselves. I am generally a very courteous practitioner, especially around adjournments since they rarely impact me or my clients. However, if someone is not courteous to me at some point in a case, I have no reason to be courteous to them at a later time.
All told, being a practicing lawyer is hard enough, and when adversaries make it difficult for lawyers to obtain adjournments, this makes it even more difficult. Accordingly, in most instances, lawyers should just consent to adjournments requested by adversaries without putting conditions on approving such adjournments.
Keeping Law School Accessible When Federal Loans Fall Short
As federal borrowing caps tighten financing options for law students, one organization is stepping in to negotiate the terms they can't secure alone.
Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothman.law.