The Right May Be Valid, but the Legal Path May Be Wrong

The Right May Be Valid, but the Legal Path May Be Wrong

In legal practice, the strength of the right alone is not enough.

The facts may be in your favor, the documents may be sound, and the claim may be legitimate; nevertheless, the case may weaken if the wrong legal route is chosen.

Do you begin with an amicable demand or judicial proceedings?
Does the dispute fall within the jurisdiction of the court or arbitration?
Is the claim directed against the correct person?
And is what is required a new action, or enforcement of an existing right?

These questions may appear procedural, but in many cases they affect the substance of the outcome.

A lawyer does not work only to establish that the client has a right. The lawyer must also ensure that the right is pursued before the proper authority, in the proper capacity, at the proper time, and through the most suitable legal instrument.

Practice has taught me that some cases do not weaken because their holders lack a right, but because they started in the wrong place, directed the proceedings against the wrong party, or chose a procedure that does not serve the outcome they seek.

That is why, before I ask:

What is our argument?

I prefer to ask first:

Are we on the right legal path?

A strong argument matters…

But it cannot achieve its purpose if placed on the wrong path.

— Omar Baghdadi