In civil proceedings, the court renders its decision based on what the parties present and prove. Anything not presented is not considered as a basis for the decision. Anything disputed by the opposing party is only taken into account if it is proven to the court’s satisfaction. And what is omitted in the first instance generally cannot be remedied on appeal.
This has far-reaching consequences. A claim may fail even though it is substantively justified—because a crucial fact is missing, an allegation has not been sufficiently specified, or required evidence has not been presented. It is not uncommon for the outcome of a lawsuit to depend less on complex legal issues than on the quality of the presentation of the facts.
In complex commercial disputes, this is precisely where the challenge lies. Contracts, correspondence, technical documentation, and years of business operations do not, in and of themselves, paint a clear picture of the facts. Individual events must be reconstructed, connections identified, and contradictions resolved. What initially seems insignificant may turn out to be crucial. Conversely, an excessive focus on details can obscure the big picture.
This requires more than just a careful review of the files. Every industry has its own processes, practices, and economic context. Without understanding them, it is impossible to reliably assess the significance of individual decisions, statements, or business transactions.
In many cases, there are also technical or scientific issues that cannot be assessed without a technical understanding of the subject matter. Anyone who has not fully grasped the actual context themselves will hardly be able to explain it to a court that is unfamiliar with the relevant business world.
“Mr. Meier-Greve impresses with his exceptionally thorough examination of the facts, his analytical mindset, and his willingness to delve into even complex scientific issues in great detail.”
Exploring and Understanding What Matters Most
For me, as a trial attorney, this means that I must first independently assess the facts of the case—without relying on the client’s preliminary assessment. I do not simply content myself with providing a legal analysis of the client’s account. I want to investigate and understand the actual events and their economic context myself, identify the connections between them, and also question the assumptions on which the client’s account is based.
Only on this basis can a factual presentation be developed that highlights the key facts, resolves contradictions, and specifically incorporates the necessary evidence. Similarly, the questions posed to an expert witness require an understanding of what the actual problem is and the assumptions on which the expert’s assessment must be based.
This work becomes particularly challenging from a procedural standpoint when multiple contractual relationships and proceedings are intertwined. A company may find itself defending against claims brought by its client while simultaneously having to enforce claims against a subcontractor. The same sequence of events is assessed from different perspectives. What is argued in one proceeding must also hold true in the other. The individual disputes can then only be argued persuasively based on an understanding of the overall situation.
“He got up to speed on the highly complex matter in no time.”
Ultimately, the wealth of actual events must be distilled into a presentation that is precise, coherent, and verifiable—one that a court can understand without having to reconstruct for itself the business relationships—which often span years—the technical processes, or the extensive project documentation.
Contact us
This post is also available in: