Written by By Austin Hunt
I put a small challenge to Patrick Hinrichs when I sat down with him to talk about choosing a car accident attorney. Could he give someone three questions that would help them figure out whether a firm was right for them? Patrick, an attorney and partner at The Bruning Law Firm, had been explaining how a prospective client might recognize relevant experience during a conversation.
I wanted to make that practical. If you’re in St. Louis looking for help after a crash, you need some way to participate in that first meeting, even if you’ve never hired a lawyer before. What I take from Patrick’s answer is that the questions can do more than fill a notebook: they can help you picture the relationship you’re considering.
The questions should reveal the working relationship
Patrick began by suggesting that a prospective client research the firm and hear what other people had to say about their experiences. That gives you something to bring into the conversation. If someone describes an attorney who kept them informed, for example, I’d want to hear how that communication worked and what I could expect myself.
I’d add some care to that preparation. Best Lawyers List’s Tampa guide explains that ratings and review counts can change, while the Federal Trade Commission’s guidance on evaluating online reviews recommends checking several sources and considering recency. The FTC also cautions that you cannot always tell a genuine review from a fake one by looking at it. That’s general consumer guidance, not an assessment of any attorney; I would use reviews to develop questions without treating someone else’s experience as a preview of my own.
Patrick’s next questions brought us into the experience of actually being a client. “Am I just a file number? Am I a person?” He followed that with specifics: how many people would work on the claim, how often the client could expect contact, and how long the process might take. The human concern and the practical details belonged together in his answer. Wanting to feel heard gives you a reason to ask who will be listening and when.
That also gives me a useful way to read Best Lawyers List’s New York City discussion of firm size and attorney access. Its examples concern New York practices, but Patrick’s questions help turn the subject into a conversation you can have wherever you’re looking. If several people will handle your claim, you can ask how their roles fit together, who your usual contact would be, and how you would reach the attorney when you needed an explanation.
I can picture bringing those questions into a consultation and getting a much clearer sense of an ordinary week with the firm. Then Patrick reached the question about timing, and his answer needed more room.
A timetable needs room for the person
Patrick resisted the idea of fitting an injured person into a standard timetable. He explained his approach through the individual’s recovery, then put it this way: “And we’re going to take this day by day and step by step, and not force or rush anything.”
He was describing how he wanted to approach that person’s case. I don’t take his answer as a reason to avoid discussing time; if you’re trying to plan your life, an estimate may be one of the things you most want. What his explanation helps me see is why the estimate needs a conversation around it. What does it cover, what is still unknown, and what would cause the attorney to revise it?
The question I’d carry forward is how the firm would help me understand the next step while the larger timetable remained uncertain. There is a difference between being told that no exact date is available and being given an explanation of what can happen now. Patrick’s earlier questions about contact matter here, too, because I would want to know how I’d hear about a change in the plan. His answer leaves room for uncertainty without making the conversation end there.
Respect becomes visible when you ask for help
Later, when I asked about early warning signs in communication, Patrick focused on whether an attorney makes time for a client and treats them with respect. I had tried a joke about an attorney pulling up in a Lamborghini, and Patrick complicated the joke: financial success could also reflect good work. I conceded that was fair. The car wasn’t going to answer the question I was asking.
His more useful warning signs were attorneys who don’t make time to talk, talk down to people, or forget the respect a client deserves. “Your attorney should always be in your corner.” That is the part of the exchange I’d bring with me into a consultation, especially if I needed to admit that an explanation had lost me. Being able to ask someone to go over it again is a practical part of deciding whether we could work together.
It also brings me back to something Patrick had said earlier, before my three-question challenge: he suggested listening to the follow-up questions a firm asks a prospective client. He saw those questions as a sign of experience with what needs to be addressed. Questions alone don’t establish an attorney’s ability, but his observation gives me something specific to notice about the exchange: is the person helping me explain my situation, and can I follow where the conversation is going?
That’s what I learned from this part of our interview, and what I’d want you to take into your own search. Leave yourself a few notes about who you’d speak with, what would happen next, and what still needs explaining. When you compare those conversations, you’ll have the actual answers in front of you, along with a sense of whether there was room for your questions.
Disclosure: I conducted this interview through my professional work with The Bruning Law Firm. AI assisted with research, drafting, and editing.
