ILNews

DTCI: Young attorneys should rely on their own devices at work

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

kevin tyra DTCIElbert Hubbard was a writer in the Horatio Alger vein in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. His best-known essay, “A Message to Garcia” (1899), tells a story from the Spanish-American War. President William McKinley needed a letter delivered to Gen. Calixto Garcia, a rebel commander somewhere in the mountains of Cuba. One of his advisors recommended Lt. Andrew Rowan.

McKinley gave Rowan the letter. Rowan took the letter without a word and departed. Four days later, Rowan landed by night on the Cuban coast. Three weeks later, Rowan appeared on the far side of the island, having delivered the letter to Garcia.

Hubbard’s point in the story is that Rowan did not ask the president, “How am I supposed to find Garcia?” Rowan had the confidence and resourcefulness to figure that out on his own, rather than bothering his superior with such questions. Hubbard asserted that such people are the ones who succeed in life, as opposed to those who need everything spelled out for them.

This is a useful lesson for today’s law firm associates, as well as any relatively junior attorney, whether in a corporate legal department, government agency or elsewhere. To the extent practicable, young attorneys should rely on their own devices to determine what needs to be done, and how to do it, rather than expect the more senior attorney to spell it out for them.

There are limits to this, of course. It behooves the more senior attorney to provide guidance to the subordinate when appropriate. If, for example, the more senior attorney already has specific themes or ideas in mind for the motion for summary judgment, he should share those with the subordinate at the outset. And if the more senior attorney is well versed on an issue and the subordinate has virtually no experience, it makes sense to provide some guidance that may significantly reduce the time the subordinate spends on the project, which presumably the client would appreciate. But the first thought of the associate should be, “How can I figure this out for myself?”

Which brings me to the concept of “completed staff work.” I learned this as a young Navy JAG officer assigned for two years as a ship’s legal officer 30 years ago (I also learned that the shell-backing ceremony when the ship crosses the equator is really disgusting, but that’s a different story).

When making either a written or an oral report to the commanding officer, the staff officer is expected to answer, or be ready to answer, all foreseeable questions the commanding officer may have that were raised in the report. If, for example, you recommend filing court-martial charges against a sailor, also describe (or be prepared to describe) the witnesses and evidence anticipated by both the prosecution and defense and analyze the likely outcome of the court-martial, as well as any blow-back, such as the effect on crew morale.

If the commanding officer has any questions (particularly any unanswered questions) at the end of your report, you have failed to produce completed staff work.

And for any question the commanding officer may have for you at any time, there are only two acceptable answers: (1) a correct, complete and substantive answer to the question; or (2) “I don’t know, Captain, but I will find out and report back to you promptly.”

This concept is fully applicable to just about everything we do in the civilian legal profession as well. It applies to memoranda and other work-product for more senior attorneys in the office, as well as to pleadings to the court.

Where many attorneys are more likely to fall short in this regard is in communications to the client (particularly the corporate or claim-department client).

When you report to the client that you have received the opposing party’s responses to your written discovery, do you highlight what is significant about the responses? What is different from the information you previously had? And what are the next steps, leading to what ultimate disposition in the case?

When you review your work-product, if you put yourself in the shoes of the recipient and can think of no more questions that you have left unanswered, you have likely achieved completed staff work, and you are ready to hit “Send.”•

__________

Kevin C. Tyra is a director of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana and the principal of The Tyra Law Firm P.C. in Indianapolis. The opinions 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. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT