“Wars of Reasonableness” – as defined here at Justice Smiles – are generally conducted by providing choice:

• a ‘hard’ choice for the opposing party;
• a ‘soft’ choice for the client;
• an exceptionally fair choice for all;
• and the consequences of a non-response – the filing of a complaint and proper service and continuing with necessary follow-through.

Justice Smiles has found its “Wars of Reasonableness” to be exceptionally successful.

In addition to cabining the opposing party’s emotions, this technique applies significant pressure on opposing attorneys.

Attorneys faced with the prospect of not likely being able to provide better results for their clients are unlikely to advocate for additional conflict.

First, this deflates their credibility in front of fact finders who deem boundary disputes in the vast majority of cases to be pitiful wastes of resources.

Second, opposing attorneys also face the very real prospect of receiving bar complaints after the unsuccessful pursuit of a trial, when a more appropriate option had been provided much earlier.

Clean up the conflct. Don’t clean out the client’s wallet is the goal. That’s reasonable isn’t it?