ILNews

Courting civility

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Lawyers behaving badly give the profession a black eye, but nurturing civility among opposing litigators can repair the damage, trial and defense attorneys agreed in a rare joint seminar.

The Indiana Trial Lawyers Association teamed with the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana for the seminar and panel discussion “Two Parties … One Oath: A Conversation on Civility” May 24 at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis.

Peter D. Palmer, a New Albany trial lawyer and partner at Palmer Thompson Law who concentrates on medical malpractice, said he has a simple and effective strategy for uncivil opposing counsel.

“I like to kill them with kindness,” Palmer said. Engaging bitterness or participating in gamesmanship is counterproductive and draining. “It’s too much stress in my life.”

Speakers and panelists painted incivility with a broad brush to include more than off-putting demeanor in depositions or court. Tactics such as late discovery, repeated delays and onerous demands for depositions all fit the definition.

John O. Feighner, a trial lawyer with Haller & Colvin in Fort Wayne, recalled a personal injury trial in which an opposing counsel’s firm engaged in such tactics, including missed hearings and a last-minute canceling of mediation. He termed such behavior “a lack of civility shown to the court.”

“I’ll never, ever trust that law firm,” he said.

John Trimble, a defense attorney with Lewis Wagner who moderated the panel discussion, said trial and defense attorneys can agree without being disagreeable, and he noted his opposition in cases with Feighner as an example.

“We’ve had some pretty adversarial cases; we’ve never had a moment of incivility,” Trimble said.

But panelists agreed that the digital age has fostered incivility. Email provides a sometimes unwitting opportunity to dash off a note in the heat of the moment that may impart a less-than-civil tone.

“People, including me, will say things in an email they wouldn’t say if they waited a couple of days,” said DTCI President Lonnie Johnson, a partner with Clendening Johnson & Bohrer in Bloomington who participated in the panel.

Palmer said he has a test he conducts before pressing the “send” button: “Would that be an email you’d want a judge to be reading?”

Two judges participated in the seminar and gave addresses: Indiana Justice Steven David and Larry McKinney, federal judge for the Southern District of Indiana.

David invoked the words of former United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “Few Americans can even recall that our society once sincerely trusted and respected its lawyers.” “I submit we can get back there,” David said. “We cannot be lawyers like our clients see on television.”

McKinney said judges take note of attorneys who might not practice civility. Those who are more frequently called for pre-trial conferences, for example, are probably on that judge’s list.

“We know who you are,” McKinney warned.

Judges, through their authority, can keep proceedings civil. “When a judge has his hand on that case, everyone knows it,” he said.

David said loaded words an attorney directs toward opposing counsel can backfire. When he hears an attorney describe someone or something as “disingenuous,” for instance, “I basically turn to mute. … I shut off.”

il-civility-seminar06-2col.jpg Indiana Trial Lawyers Association representative Peter Palmer, left, and immediate past president John O. Feighner participate in a panel discussion on civility May 24 at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. The ITLA and the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana co-sponsored the first-of-its-kind seminar that featured addresses from Indiana Justice Steven David and Judge Larry McKinney of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. (IBJ Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

Raising the rhetoric can raise the stakes, and incivility costs clients, several panelists said. One noted a case in which legal fees mounted to more than $1 million over a dispute valued at about $300,000.

Raised emotions and pitched litigation contribute to disputes that fail mediation. “Nobody ever wants to resolve a case that’s so involved with these emotional battles,” Trimble said.

Trimble is irritated by attorneys who argue to opposing counsel rather than arguing to the judge. He encountered an attorney who did that recently but suggested that ignoring such theatrics was the better course.

“I think it went a long way with the judge that I didn’t take the bait,” Trimble said.


 

Several panelists said there can be a fine line between legitimate legal tactics and acts that might be considered uncivil.

Defense attorney Donna Fisher, a principal with Smith Fisher Maas & Howard in Indianapolis, confessed that she had crossed that line in her career. She said she worried that she might have fit the characteristics of a take-no-prisoners “Rambo lawyer.”

“How do you balance the need to win with the need to be civil if ‘Rambo’ tactics give you an advantage?” she said. “I am concerned about the profession. I’m concerned that I’m not as civil as I could be . . . There are three rules of civility: Be kind, be kind, be kind.”

Several audience members suggested similar panels on civility in the legal profession be conducted around the state. Others wondered whether law schools might incorporate more instruction on civility.

McKinney said recommendations have been made for law schools to promote such studies.

“There is some pushback from the law schools because, ‘it’s just not academic enough,’” he said.

Feighner, immediate past president of the ITLA, played a key role in organizing the event.

“I was contacted by Lonnie Johnson, president of DTCI, and he in turn had been contacted by Justice David, who wanted to get a joint program supported by ITLA and DTCI to sponsor a civility seminar,” Feighner said.

The ITLA executive board unanimously endorsed the idea, and plans for the seminar were developed. He said it’s a first in recent times that the two associations jointly sponsored an event.

“What made this unique is it was kind of a statewide program and at the law school, which gave it special emphasis,” Feighner said.

“I fully expect that we’ll be talking with Justice David and our counterparts at DTCI to expand the presentation,” he said. “One of the ideas is to focus on law students and young lawyers in both ITLA and DTCI, as kind of a mentoring concept.”

For his part, David said he hopes to see a continuation of the dialogue between the two groups.

“I believe civility has to become the rule all the time and behavior that is not civil must be identified and changed, voluntarily or involuntarily. The client is better served. The profession is better served. The public is better served,” he said.

David said in his opening address that as a judge in Boone County, he insisted that the definition of civility be posted outside the courtroom door. His simple advice: always take the high road.

Attorneys who fail to do so, Trimble said, risk harm to their reputations and further damage to the profession.

“What we do to ourselves with incivility only helps the comedians,” he said.•
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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT