Lawyers
are
busy
people
who
often
need
to
juggle
court
appearances
with
obligations
in
other
cases
and
personal
responsibilities. As
a
result,
lawyers
frequently
need
to
request
adjournments
so
they
can
balance
all
of
their
obligations. Depending
on
the
court,
lawyers
may
need
to
secure
the
consent
of
counsel
to
adjourn
a
court
appearance
or
another
type
of
case
obligation. In
most
instances,
adjournments
should
be
granted
as
a
matter
of
professional
courtesy
and
adjournments
should
not
be
conditioned
on
substantive
concessions
in
a
case.
Earlier
in
my
career,
I
was
involved
in
a
landlord-tenant
matter,
and
the
court
scheduled
a
hearing
in
the
case
on
short
notice. The
hearing
was
scheduled
for
right
in
the
middle
of
when
I
was
set
to
take
a
much-needed
vacation. As
a
result,
I
requested
that
my
adversary
consent
to
an
adjournment
of
just
one
week
so
I
could
return
from
the
vacation
and
appear
at
the
conference
when
I
did
not
have
any
conflicts
with
my
schedule.
To
my
surprise,
my
adversary
would
only
consent
to
a
one-week
adjournment
if
I
made
substantive
concessions
in
the
matter.
I
thought
this
was
extremely
discourteous. The
types
of
concessions
my
adversary
wanted
would
put
my
client
in
a
much
more
difficult
position
defending
the
matter.
Like
any
good
lawyer
looking
out
for
the
client’s
best
interest,
I
decided
not
to
accept
the
adjournment
if
it
was
conditioned
on
concessions
that
could
hurt
my
client
later
in
the
case.
I
then
asked
the
court
for
permission
to
adjourn
the
conference
to
a
later
date
without
my
adversary’s
permission. The
court
declined
to
grant
the
adjournment
since
the
rules
of
that
judge
specifically
required
the
consent
of
all
parties
to
adjourn
an
appearance. Not
wanting
to
miss
the
conference,
and
unable
to
find
coverage
to
attend
the
scheduled
appearance,
I
ended
up
adjusting
my
vacation
so
I
was
able
to
appear
at
the
conference.
When
I
saw
my
adversary
face
to
face
he
related
that
he
thought
I
would
not
be
at
the
conference
since
I
had
vacation
planned
for
the
time
when
the
conference
was
scheduled.
I
conveyed
that
I
had
to
change
my
vacation
plans
in
order
to
attend
the
conference
because
my
adversary
did
not
consent
to
the
adjournment. My
adversary
seemed
uncomfortable
with
the
fact
that
I
had
to
change
my
plans
because
he
had
failed
to
give
his
consent,
and
he
should
have
just
consented
to
the
adjournment
unconditionally
in
the
first
place.
One
of
the
main
reasons
lawyers
should
just
consent
to
adjournments
without
making
conditions
is
that
the
shoe
may
be
on
the
other
foot
at
some
other
point
in
the
case. I
have
had
numerous
instances
in
my
career
when
adversaries
have
given
me
a
hard
time
about
adjournments
and
then
later
asked
for
adjournments
themselves. I
am
generally
a
very
courteous
practitioner,
especially
around
adjournments
since
they
rarely
impact
me
or
my
clients. However,
if
someone
is
not
courteous
to
me
at
some
point
in
a
case,
I
have
no
reason
to
be
courteous
to
them
at
a
later
time.
All
told,
being
a
practicing
lawyer
is
hard
enough,
and
when
adversaries
make
it
difficult
for
lawyers
to
obtain
adjournments,
this
makes
it
even
more
difficult.
Accordingly,
in
most
instances,
lawyers
should
just
consent
to
adjournments
requested
by
adversaries
without
putting
conditions
on
approving
such
adjournments.
Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at jordan@rothman.law.