ILNews

DTCI: A lesson not learned in law school

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

freybergerI appreciate my law school education. I was given the tools I would need to analyze and apply the law to a given set of facts. I had been brainwashed by lawyer shows on television and in movies to think that I had to be smooth. I relished the thought of catching my opponent in a mistake and slamming the trap at the perfect time, while the jury watched and nodded with approval. Then I started the practice of law. It is “the practice of law” for a reason, and I quickly learned what I consider to be the most important lesson for trial work.

Trial lawyers come in all shapes and sizes. Moreover, the different styles of trying a case to a judge or jury are even more diverse. Although we abide by the same sets of trial rules, statutory law and precedential case law, how we handle and argue from them varies greatly from one lawyer to the next. Trial work is intellectual mixed martial arts in that respect, where a boxer may wage battle against a wrestler.

What’s important about this is that, despite the differences in style, none are right or wrong. The efficacy of your style is dependent upon the jury, not your opponent. And I submit to you that your style is just as effective as anyone else’s, irrespective of the fact finder. This is something I did not learn in law school.

A partner of mine named Chris Lee served two tours of duty with the United States Army. When he tries a case, he is concise and pointed. He doesn’t waste words and saves objections for when they count. His “high and tight” haircut gives him away. He never has to inform the jury about his military service – it is easily identifiable by the manner in which he handles himself in court. In contrast, I’ve never been in the Army. I would never be confused with Chris. I use relaxed humor in the courtroom, where he uses laser-guided precision.

I worked closely with Chris before and between his tours of duty. When he was deployed, I tried to replicate his trial style. I cut my hair, sharpened my points and checked my lighthearted humor at the courtroom door. What I discovered was fairly traumatic: the same points being made by me didn’t have the same effect on the jury as they did when delivered by Major Lee. I learned that I am not, and will never be, Captain America. I am thankful it only took a few cases for this to sink in. After some mental healing, I began trying cases in my own style. The result was a more comfortable and more successful trial experience.

Those first few trial losses also taught me that I am neither better nor worse a trial lawyer than my opponent, no matter how many years of experience he has. This was a fact that was hard for me to internalize. Up to then, I assumed that everyone else knew the answers to the questions still rattling around in my head. It was then pointed out to me that both lawyers in a dispute operate from the same facts and the same law. It is a comforting thought.

I’ve been practicing law for only 10 years. I’m hardly what one would call a wily veteran. However, I’ve been given the opportunity to try more cases than most lawyers my age … mostly because of Major Lee’s military service. I only wish I would have found the comfort of trying the first few cases in my own skin rather than feeling the pressure of wearing someone else’s.•

__________

Gregory Freyberger is a partner in the Evansville firm of Kahn Dees Donovan & Kahn and is on the board of directors of DTCI. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT