ILNews

Noyes: A short phone call can change the dynamic of a case

May 7, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

By Jon Noyes

During the summer of last year, I was supporting litigation in a rather unfortunate product liability case. The product at issue had exploded into our client’s face, but the explosion caused the product to shatter into pieces so tiny that only a small portion could be recovered. The rest of the product turned to dust. As time pressed on, it became painfully clear that we simply did not possess enough of the recovered product for our expert to complete the testing he needed to opine that the product was defective. After all, there cannot be a product liability case without a product.

noyes Noyes

It was only after going back to the drawing board that we found a solution. In initial interrogatories, we asked the defendant whether there had been any other complaints of the same type of product exploding during use. As it turned out, there were two. I entered the individuals’ names into the Public Access to Court Electronic Records system hoping that there would be something, anything, giving us a lead as to where to go next. Luckily, one of the other individuals filed suit against the same defendant in another district.

I called the plaintiff’s attorney on the other case hoping to trade some ideas on moving forward. The attorney was also faced with the problem of a disintegrating product, but had found an expert with the specialized knowledge required to render an opinion. He had even deposed one of the defendants. The attorney gave me the name of his expert, we traded non-protected information, and I directed him to some cases useful in defeating an oncoming dispositive motion. Our firm got in touch with the expert and hired him. The rest is history.

The point of this story is that a challenging issue can often be resolved by simply communicating with an attorney that has encountered the same issue or something similar in the past. All it takes is picking up the phone and making the call. Attorneys who have experienced these tough issues can help with propounding targeted discovery seeking seemingly elusive documents, providing deposition transcripts of adversarial parties and their experts, forming legal arguments, and finding useful cases or briefs needed to win motion practice. These attorneys may also have the added value of hindsight if the issue was disposed of in their case.

Most importantly, it never hurts to hear someone else’s perspective on similar issues. Another attorney may be analyzing similar factual and legal issues, but have a different perspective regarding the best way to move forward. Hearing the attorney’s perspective and adding your own to the discussion helps both parties round out strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases. In fact, it can be a cost-effective and efficient form of litigation support.

There are a number of ways to make use of other attorneys in this way. Listservs are the most obvious medium. They often draw from large pools of attorneys and can cover issues ranging from broad litigation strategy to specialized bodies of law. However, Listservs are only as strong as their members. If the majority of the members are active, then Listservs can thrive. If the majority of members are inactive, or relegate Listserv emails to a rarely visited folder, then its utility can diminish greatly. Moreover, although a Listserv email can provide some insight into a difficult issue, a personal conversation may be a more productive medium for a fluid exchange of ideas.

A combined use of discovery and electronic court records is another way to track down support. Interrogatories requesting the names of other complainants, or captions of other cases, concerning similar issues provide a cost-effective means of securing this information. However, opposing parties are often reluctant to provide this information and, in fact, may object on relevance grounds. For individuals and smaller businesses, a quick search on Odyssey or PACER may also prove fruitful. These references allow attorneys to see whether an opposing party is involved in any other lawsuits in participating Indiana counties or at the federal level. PACER is especially helpful because it also allows individuals to conveniently download documents from a case’s docket at a reasonable cost.

These methods make for great jumping-off points, but the onus is on the attorney to make the phone call. After all, the practice of law is, at its heart, a social profession that builds from communications with others. We use authority and communications with our clients and witnesses to make arguments to the court and our adversaries. Opinions are crafted and settlements are agreed on from those arguments; the former become new authority. Other attorneys then use that new authority and the cycle continues. Networking with other attorneys on substantive issues is a natural extension of this cycle as it allows us to broaden our base of communication and, in doing so, better serve our clients. All it takes is some elbow grease and a phone call.•

__________

Jon Noyes earned his J.D., cum laude, from the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in 2013. Jon joined Wilson Kehoe Winingham as an associate attorney in 2013. The opinions expressed 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. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT