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. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT