We handle Hague Service Requests for lawsuits in courts across the continent, from Puerto Rico to Guam to Nunavut (yes, Nunavut, the Canadian territory way up on the Arctic Ocean.) All of our clients are attorneys and their firms. All. That is an absolute. Occasionally, though, when we send a client an engagement letter, the client will ask us to revise and address it to the litigant. My response:

Sorry, we can’t do that.

Or, more accurately stated, we won’t do that, for a host of reasons.

For starters, I’m admitted to practice in Missouri. End of list. Even though my practice is limited to transnational legal doctrine, that means there’s a less-than-two percent chance that I can advise that litigant without the possibility of a UPL charge. I’d beat the charge (federal issue, after all), but it’s just not worth it.

Second, advising a litigant directly means getting in the middle of an attorney-client relationship. In that situation, I might say something that contradicts what the litigant’s lawyer told them, which could make the lawyer look bad. Even with that lawyer’s fully informed consent and direction, no thanks. I’m not about to cast that colleague in even a glimmer of bad light.

Third, if we take an engagement with the litigant, the litigant might think that I’m his or her lawyer. I’m not, and I don’t want even a hint of a possibility that s/he will think so.

And last, if a litigant engages us directly, that naturally gives the impression that they call the shots and can ring us up and pepper us with questions and tell us what to do. Nope, not gonna do that. My job is to explain relevant/applicable doctrines of international and foreign (many of them arcane and obscure) law to my clients, and then to apply those doctrines to a case in controversy. It’s far easier, and takes significantly less time, to explain those doctrines to attorneys and paralegals who are already up to speed on the domestic law that applies as well.

To be sure, our fees can be paid by a litigant. That’s often necessary just in the interest of expediency. But the ultimate shot-caller, if there are any calls to be made, is the litigant’s lawyer.

Author’s note: I’ve varied from this rule three times in my career. Two of them were unmitigated disasters, and the other was no picnic.