Law school professor, David Yamada, wrote a blog post saying essentially that many employer side lawyers in employment cases are "attack dogs" (my paraphrase) because many employers are "attack dogs" themselves. Such abusive employers tend to seek out abusive lawyers, he writes. See David Yamada’s blog post. Law school profs are in a position to observe and remain neutral. His view regarding "Rambo" lawyers is:
"They distort, intimidate, and delay. They take a worker’s minor faults or mistakes and elevate them into major deficiencies. They help their clients sweep horrible behaviors and actions under the rug. They use legal process to deplete, torture, and humiliate everyday workers." He argues that some employers continue the abuse into the lawsuit that went on during the employment relationship.
Sure, some management lawyers do all those things. It is like a second round of the same abuse for many employees involved in an an employment lawsuit. But, another law prof, Workplace Prof counters saying that plaintiff side lawyers can be just as bad. It is true that employer side lawyers will typically have more resources and the employer starts from a more privileged position. More effective lawyers, he notes, can see the case from both sides an are problem-solvers, rather than Rambo litigators.
In my experience, representing mostly employees, some employer side lawyers are very civil and work toward resolution, rather than fighting just for spite. And, such lawyers do much to resolve a case. These lawyers are the ones who make the system work more effectively. But, I know there are some plaintiff side employment lawyers who makes cases worse and who fight, it often seems, just to fight.
I find it hard to believe defense lawyers are any worse than some plaintiff lawyers. But, since they often have the greater resources, it may seem worse to employees. They get abused as employees and again later as litigants.