I've got good news and bad news for you. The good news is that the majority of lawyers are competent (or better), meaning that for most cases, you are likely to be able to find someone who is going to be able to represent your interests at least reasonably well. The bad news is that distinguishing between a C+ lawyer and an A+ lawyer is very hard, and takes a lot of effort. Unfortunately, I don't think that the profession as a whole does a good job at helping clients make informed decisions. SaaS flat fee packages

The question you've asked is how one knows that a lawyer is "good." A lot of people assume that if the lawyer "wins" a lot of cases, he or she is good. There is some degree of truth to this--good lawyers are going to win more cases than they should, just as bad lawyers are going to lose more cases than they should. But most legal matters are not in black and white; if a client wins $1 million in damages at trial, but has to spend $1.5 million in fees to get there, is it really a win? If a client with $10 million in legitimate exposure settles a matter for $2 million, is that really a "loss"? Good lawyers are those who consistently achieve better results than the client can rightfully expect.

As far as qualities are concerned, a "good" lawyer is one who (1) has experience on your types of cases, (2) is loyal to you and gives you an appropriate level of attention, (3) works diligently but ethically to achieve the desired results, (4) is unafraid of a challenge, (5) turns out strong work product without wasting time, and (6) does all of this for a fee that makes sense within your budget. There are $800/hr attorneys who can't check all these boxes, and $100/hr attorneys who can. A good lawyer is also one who (7) can admit to not knowing the answer to every question you have off the top of his or her head and (8) will speak objectively with you about your case/goals.

Item (8) is something that people mess up on all the time; many clients come through the door assuming their case is flawless and seeking validation. They view any kind of analysis from a lawyer as personal criticism. Other times, clients may have doubts about their case, and are looking for a "champion" to tell them that everything is going to be great. Prospective clients often become upset when they find out that their matter carries risks, and go off to find an attorney who "believes in them."

As just one example, a few years ago, I attended a consultation with an individual who wanted to bring a breach of contract claim. There was only one problem: an unambiguous section of the contract made the suit impossible, as it allowed the actions the would-be client claimed constituted breach. Within a few minutes of reviewing the contract, both my partner and I reached the same conclusion. We politely explained the situation, pointed to the section in question, and noted the almost certain outcome. This was not a joyful moment for us, as we were likely waving goodbye to a few hundred thousand dollars in fees by telling the client he would be throwing away money by bringing a suit. Still, it was the right thing to do. The client's reaction was anger, telling us that we were wasting his time and didn't understand the contract and that he obviously needed to find "real" lawyers to help him. Bad move on his part; the “real” lawyers he was searching for would have to be willing to ignore an obvious defect in his case.

Beyond legal skills, the major advantage of hiring a lawyer is the gain in objectivity: a lawyer’s job is to fight zealously on your behalf, but behind closed doors, his or her job is to counsel you on the law, not to tell you want you want to hear the way a friend or loved one might. The fact that a case is an uphill battle will not stop a good lawyer from working diligently on your behalf if that’s what you want, so you should welcome someone telling you about potential issues with your case early on, before your bills start to pile up; someone who is straightforward with you from the outset, even when it means that he/she is potentially waiving goodbye to fees, is someone you should be able to trust. There's obviously nothing wrong with getting a second opinion: lawyers are not infallible, and the fact that one lawyer doesn't think highly of a case doesn't mean that the next lawyer can't see things differently (and be right). But your “second opinion” lawyer needs to be able to explain why he or she disagrees with the initial negative assessment. If Lawyer No. 2 or 3 says “yes, I understand what Lawyer 1 is saying, but here are several reasons why I think he is incorrect/overly pessimistic” or “yes, Lawyer 1 is right that there is an issue with your case, however, here’s why I believe you still have good case should you file suit,” then you may have found a better lawyer. In contrast, a lawyer who says things like “Lawyer 1 doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” “I’m an expert in this field, we’ll figure it out,” or “Lawyer 1 apparently doesn’t believe in you, but I do,” without more, is probably just telling you what you want to hear. There’s a term in the legal industry—“settlement artists” or “churners”—for the type of lawyer who is all sunshine when a client walks through the door. No case (attached to a paying client) is a bad one, and forget those wusses who are afraid of their own shadows and can only point out flaws, the churner is here to help. A churner will spend several months researching and “working up” a case to generate fees, maybe filing a few motions and taking a couple depositions. But when push comes to shove and it’s time to actually pursue the case on the merits, a churner will have a drastic change of heart, telling you that "the situation has changed" and "new facts came to light that were unhelpful" and it’s time to settle. The churner now sees your case the same way as the lawyers that supposedly “didn’t believe in you,” but you’re out tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) in the process. It's far better to know all the pros and cons of your case before you bring a suit and then work with your lawyer to try to achieve the best possible outcome. Sometimes, a client will still want to pursue a long-shot claim, and that’s fine, so long as he or she does so with eyes open.

How do you find a good lawyer? The best approach is usually to ask other lawyers you know, even if their expertise does not relate to your case. In practicing just 10 years, I know a variety of excellent lawyers all over the country that I would trust if I had a specific legal issue, and that I could recommend without hesitation. If I had any doubts, more senior lawyers I respect have extensive contact lists. Non-lawyer friends and colleagues are often good for some types of referrals: your jogging buddy who cleaned up in her divorce or your uncle who beat his DWI might be able to point you in the right direction if you have similar issues. But going to someone because they're your friend's cousin or something like that almost always ends badly. Finally, the internet is a mixed bag; sites like SuperLawyers are reasonably good, and Chambers (…) and Benchmark (…) are excellent for high-level work, but a lot of sites are thinly-veiled advertisements or referral-generators. If you live near a large city, many local magazines and newspapers produce annual lists of the best attorneys in the area, and those can be helpful, so long as they are not paid-for advertisements.

If you feel like you might have a lawsuit (or you've been sued), you don't wait to sit on things, because claims and suits have deadlines, and the more time you have to find a lawyer, the better your chances are of finding the right one. Find 3-4 referrals, and set up meetings with these lawyers. It's OK to tell lawyers that you're exploring your options; good lawyers aren't afraid of competition. Most lawyers--even lawyers like me that charge high rates--will talk with you for free for an hour or two and do a little work to try to figure out whether they can be of assistance. You probably want to ask about the lawyer's educational background--I don't think this is incredibly important, but it's not irrelevant, either. You definitely want to know whether they regularly handle cases like yours. You want a lawyer who is going to do a lot of listening early on; my job is to ask questions and get the facts, not to lecture or sell. You need to know what the lawyer's rates will be, and whether they have any flexibility. You want to know how long they perceive this case going, and if necessary, ask for a budget. And finally, you want to know whether the case has any risks or drawbacks, and if so, how severe. All this time, you should be trying to figure out whether you would be able to work with this lawyer; you don't need to be best friends, but it's a close relationship, so connection matters. Don't be afraid to ask questions; there are no stupid questions, and any lawyer who tries to make you feel dumb or inferior is someone you don't want to work with.