Local attorney explains why lawyers prefer competent counsel on the other side

Aspen —If you’re standing in a courtroom in Eagle County watching someone in a crisp suit argue a motion, and then watching a person in a button-down shirt with a crumpled folder try to make the same point, which one do you think the judge is listening to?

According to local attorney Robbins, the answer isn’t about who speaks louder or who has the better hair. It’s about who understands the rules of the game.

"The headline of this column is, instead literal," Robbins wrote in the Vail Daily. "At least for myself — and I believe most other attorneys — I prefer another attorney, preferably one who is competent - on the other side of a dispute."

It sounds counterintuitive. We like to think of lawyers as the enemy of the common man, gatekeepers hoarding legal knowledge to keep fees high. But Robbins argues that when you strip away the Latinisms and the jargon, the preference for "counsel on the other side" is actually a matter of efficiency. It’s about knowing that the person across the table isn’t just guessing; they’re playing by a known set of rules.

To understand why, you have to understand the alternative: pro se representation.

The term comes from Latin, meaning "for oneself." It’s what you call a litigant who handles their own case without a lawyer. They file the documents. They argue the motions. They stand before the judge and hope for the best.

"At first blush, this may seem like a splendid idea; 'I know what I am doing; why not save the money?'" Robbins noted. "But most times, it is not."

The problem isn’t intelligence. It’s procedure. A smart person can still lose a case because they lack an understanding of precedent or how to structure a motion so the judge actually reads it. They leave something on the table. Or, conversely, they make unreasonable demands because they don’t know what a reasonable demand looks like in a specific legal context.

Robbins uses a simple analogy that locals will recognize: the root canal.

"If you needed a root canal or appendectomy, would you elect to perform one on yourself?" he asked. "Although it may seem that an oral or general surgeon is of a different stripe than an attorney, certainly the tools are different - all are skilled professionals with years of education and training. For one to try to replicate that absent the commensurate educational and professional background is, at the least, ill-advised."

So why do lawyers prefer other lawyers? Because it makes the job easier.

When both sides have counsel, the dispute is generally resolved more efficiently. The attorney knows which positions are reasonable and which are just posturing. They can predict how the judge will react to a certain argument. They can negotiate a settlement that actually sticks.

"When you are hiring an attorney, you are hiring him or her to do the work," Robbins wrote, noting that the value lies in that specialized knowledge of procedure and precedent.

This isn’t just theory. It’s what happens in the local courts every day. When a pro se party walks in, they might be brilliant, but if they don’t know how to file the paperwork correctly, the case drags on. If they make an unreasonable demand because they lack legal context, the other side has to spend hours explaining why it’s wrong.

But when two competent attorneys face off, the noise drops. The focus shifts to the facts. The resolution comes faster.

The question for folks around here isn’t whether lawyers are better than everyone else. It’s whether you’re willing to pay for the expertise that keeps your case from getting bogged down in technicalities.

"To hear them tell it," Robbins argues, "the system works best when the professionals are doing the work."

It’s a simple truth that’s easy to forget when you’re staring at a stack of legal forms you don’t quite understand. You think you’re saving money by doing it yourself. But in the end, you’re probably spending more time, and losing more ground, than you realized.

"The dispute is generally more efficiently and more appropriately resolved," Robbins concluded. "Compared to a party acting on his or her own."