. A self-serving professional is breaching a fiduciary duty to put your interests first, above his or her own. At the same time, settlement may be in your best interest, and it is a lawyer’s duty to swiftly convey any offers of settlement that may come along.

(5) They refuse to, or are dragging their feet in conferring with outside experts to assure you are likely to get a favorable result. A lawyer who won’t summon the services of an economist to support your claims or to refute the impending testimony of the opposition’s expert may pretend to be saving you money, but that’s probably bogus. He could be so stretched that he doesn’t have time to find a proper expert, or

How can you be sure that the chiropractor, plastic surgeon, psychologist, or attorney that you’ve selected is professionally competent, that he or she is likely to handle your case with skill and due care?

The short answer is you can’t.

In his book, THE TAO OF NEGOTIATION, author Joel Edelman, a mediation specialist and law professor, says 90% or more of the professionals he has encountered he’d consider so inept that he would not personally use their services.

People who seem to have some of the best credentials staring down from their high-rent walls may have once been super at what they do, but if they’ve grown lazy, or they’re distracted by personal problems such as drug or alcohol addictions, or they’re “phoning it in” during summer days, or they simply don’t take your matter seriously, you, your objective, and your money may be in jeopardy.

I believe there are at least 5 signs that you may have selected an incompetent practitioner and that as soon as you can, you should at least call a “timeout” in your work together, or halt it altogether.

(1) They agree to handle your case or problem without performing a thorough interview to determine all of the relevant facts. For example, any attorney worth his salt will know that each case has its own peculiarities and dynamics, and by investing “intake” time with you on the front end, they’ll make their jobs smoother and less subject to nasty surprises.

(2) They don’t show patience in answering your questions, they’re not open to hearing more about your needs or concerns than you expressed in the initial interview, or they simply won’t return your phone calls. After you agree with a surgeon to do a little nip and tuck your friend tells you that her face is still partially numb 36 months after her procedure was done, and you’re worried. Will that surgeon take your call, or set aside a few minutes to go over the potential risks and side effects of the operation you have chosen?

(3) They reverse delegate to you. One lawyer I used actually typed my legal motion into his computer as I spoke, using my language without editing it. I happen to have legal training but still, he should go over any draft once or twice to assure he has captured not only the facts and recited proper legal authority, but has adopted a suitable and sympathetic tone in his text. It’s not your job to do their work for them.

(4) They’re too willing to spend or to sacrifice your money. An attorney who urges you to settle your case, at significant financial cost to you is maximizing his odds of seeing a speedy payday, especially if he’s operating on a contingency basis. Settling may not be in your best interest, but rather in his. A self-serving professional is breaching a fiduciary duty to put your interests first, above his or her own. At the same time, settlement may be in your best interest, and it is a lawyer’s duty to swiftly convey any offers of settlement that may come along.

(5) They refuse to, or are dragging their feet in conferring with outside experts to assure you are likely to get a favorable result. A lawyer who won’t summon the services of an economist to support your claims or to refute the impending testimony of the opposition’s expert may pretend to be saving you money, but that’s probably bogus. He could be so stretched that he doesn’t have time to find a proper expert, or

blems such as drug or alcohol addictions, or they’re “phoning it in” during summer days, or they simply don’t take your matter seriously, you, your objective, and your money may be in jeopardy.

I believe there are at least 5 signs that you may have selected an incompetent practitioner and that as soon as you can, you should at least call a “timeout” in your work together, or halt it altogether.

(1) They agree to handle your case or problem without performing a thorough interview to determine all of the relevant facts. For example, any attorney worth his salt will know that each case has its own peculiarities and dynamics, and by investing “intake” time with you on the front end, they’ll make their jobs smoother and less subject to nasty surprises.

(2) They don’t show patience in answering your questions, they’re not open to hearing more about your needs or concerns than you expressed in the initial interview, or they simply won’t return your phone calls. After you agree with a surgeon to do a little nip and tuck your friend tells you that her face is still partially numb 36 months after her procedure was done, and you’re worried. Will that surgeon take your call, or set aside a few minutes to go over the potential risks and side effects of the operation you have chosen?

(3) They reverse delegate to you. One lawyer I used actually typed my legal motion into his computer as I spoke, using my language without editing it. I happen to have legal training but still, he should go over any draft once or twice to assure he has captured not only the facts and recited proper legal authority, but has adopted a suitable and sympathetic tone in his text. It’s not your job to do their work for them.

(4) They’re too willing to spend or to sacrifice your money. An attorney who urges you to settle your case, at significant financial cost to you is maximizing his odds of seeing a speedy payday, especially if he’s operating on a contingency basis. Settling may not be in your best interest, but rather in his. A self-serving professional is breaching a fiduciary duty to put your interests first, above his or her own. At the same time, settlement may be in your best interest, and it is a lawyer’s duty to swiftly convey any offers of settlement that may come along.

(5) They refuse to, or are dragging their feet in conferring with outside experts to assure you are likely to get a favorable result. A lawyer who won’t summon the services of an economist to support your claims or to refute the impending testimony of the opposition’s expert may pretend to be saving you money, but that’s probably bogus. He could be so stretched that he doesn’t have time to find a proper expert, or

the front end, they’ll make their jobs smoother and less subject to nasty surprises.

(2) They don’t show patience in answering your questions, they’re not open to hearing more about your needs or concerns than you expressed in the initial interview, or they simply won’t return your phone calls. After you agree with a surgeon to do a little nip and tuck your friend tells you that her face is still partially numb 36 months after her procedure was done, and you’re worried. Will that surgeon take your call, or set aside a few minutes to go over the potential risks and side effects of the operation you have chosen?

(3) They reverse delegate to you. One lawyer I used actually typed my legal motion into his computer as I spoke, using my language without editing it. I happen to have legal training but still, he should go over any draft once or twice to assure he has captured not only the facts and recited proper legal authority, but has adopted a suitable and sympathetic tone in his text. It’s not your job to do their work for them.

(4) They’re too willing to spend or to sacrifice your money. An attorney who urges you to settle your case, at significant financial cost to you is maximizing his odds of seeing a speedy payday, especially if he’s operating on a contingency basis. Settling may not be in your best interest, but rather in his. A self-serving professional is breaching a fiduciary duty to put your interests first, above his or her own. At the same time, settlement may be in your best interest, and it is a lawyer’s duty to swiftly convey any offers of settlement that may come along.

(5) They refuse to, or are dragging their feet in conferring with outside experts to assure you are likely to get a favorable result. A lawyer who won’t summon the services of an economist to support your claims or to refute the impending testimony of the opposition’s expert may pretend to be saving you money, but that’s probably bogus. He could be so stretched that he doesn’t have time to find a proper expert, or

ctually typed my legal motion into his computer as I spoke, using my language without editing it. I happen to have legal training but still, he should go over any draft once or twice to assure he has captured not only the facts and recited proper legal authority, but has adopted a suitable and sympathetic tone in his text. It’s not your job to do their work for them.

(4) They’re too willing to spend or to sacrifice your money. An attorney who urges you to settle your case, at significant financial cost to you is maximizing his odds of seeing a speedy payday, especially if he’s operating on a contingency basis. Settling may not be in your best interest, but rather in his. A self-serving professional is breaching a fiduciary duty to put your interests first, above his or her own. At the same time, settlement may be in your best interest, and it is a lawyer’s duty to swiftly convey any offers of settlement that may come along.

(5) They refuse to, or are dragging their feet in conferring with outside experts to assure you are likely to get a favorable result. A lawyer who won’t summon the services of an economist to support your claims or to refute the impending testimony of the opposition’s expert may pretend to be saving you money, but that’s probably bogus. He could be so stretched that he doesn’t have time to find a proper expert, or

. A self-serving professional is breaching a fiduciary duty to put your interests first, above his or her own. At the same time, settlement may be in your best interest, and it is a lawyer’s duty to swiftly convey any offers of settlement that may come along.

(5) They refuse to, or are dragging their feet in conferring with outside experts to assure you are likely to get a favorable result. A lawyer who won’t summon the services of an economist to support your claims or to refute the impending testimony of the opposition’s expert may pretend to be saving you money, but that’s probably bogus. He could be so stretched that he doesn’t have time to find a proper expert, or he may feel he should have told you up front that you’d have to pay for one, and he didn’t properly predict this cost, and senses he’ll cause a spat in trying to recover it from you, now.

Much incompetence goes undetected and therefore, undeterred. Despite what you’ve heard in the press that there are countless malpractice lawsuits, there probably aren’t enough to punish the inept.

If you feel you’re getting short shrift, you could very well be right.

Don’t doubt your feelings; doubt the professionals you have chosen.

Then, do your homework, and get second opinions to determine if you need to make a change, well before any significant or irretrievable damage has been done.