In CA...Should I hire an attorney familiar with the court or....

[AllMyFault]

I'm assuming this issue is very subjective.
Should I hire an attorney familiar with the court, judges, trustees..etc
Or
One that doesn't know the court and such?
My concern is that a 'local' to the court may have a personal agenda to work in that maintaining a 'good' relationship with the court may be more important than doing the best job he / she could for me.
I've sat with a few different attorneys and the one's close to the court seem to be more passive with less aggressive advice as if they want to just get in and get out with no hassle.
Where the ones outside the court seem to be more aggressive, offering more aggressive advice..they seem prepared to argue.
I ask this because I expect my case will be a not so cut and dry case with issues that may need to be argued.
Whats your opinion on this?

[tcreegan]

Hi AllMyFault,

Keep interviewing attorneys....

The biggest source of unhappiness w/ attorney I see around here is communication. Phone/email/fax; How fast do calls/emails get returned; Speak to atty or secretary or paralegal; Discuss or brief reply; those sorts of things.

Coming in second is work ethic/organization/attention to detail; fill in every blank, cross t's dot i' or this is 'good enough'; Everything filed ASAP or 'we have time';

Third is competence, pure and simple; do they know their stuff, the ins-outs of the system, are they over-confident and will get shot down, are they doing things the old way and get caught on the new BK law

Hope this helps w/ your choice, just passing on what I have seen on the forum, ultimately you have to find someone you are comfortable working with and are confident in their ability.

Tom in Colo

[2manybills]

I think that you are out in the Inland Empire. You are going to want an attorney that is experienced and know the trustees out there. I would PM either Liz417 or Albacore. They both had the same attorney out there in the IE.