ILNews

DTCI: Note from the defense - Stop the 'unnecessary roughness'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

dtci-mortimer-reneeI was told that I had to write an article when I became a member of the board of directors of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana. When I asked what the topic was to be, I was told, “Anything you want!” OK. Now what? What do I want to say to my colleagues in Indiana? Should I write a case note? No. There are too many of those already out there. Should I write a perspective from a lawyer from “the Region?” No.

We need to annihilate those boundaries, not enforce them. What about an article on electronic discovery or the Medicare/Medicaid issues? No. We have all either given those lectures or attended them over and over again. I was at a loss. What do I want to say to everyone out there?

As I was pondering this daunting task, I was buzzed by our receptionist. “Prominent plaintiff lawyer” was on the phone for me. (I have removed his name to protect him from jabs from his colleagues for being too nice to a defense lawyer.) I wondered why he was calling me, as we don’t currently have a case together. It turns out that he had a case with one of my partners and just thought he would call me to see how I was doing, as we had not spoken in a while. We had a nice chat and hung up. I thought how nice that call was – and how rare. It then hit me that I had found what I wanted to say to all of you.

While I am sure this writing could be deemed just another one that promotes civility, and while I am sure that there is a long list of ethical rules that promote that, too, I cite none here. I simply say this: Stop the (to use a football phrase) “unnecessary roughness.” I am hereby throwing a “flag on the play.”

I am definitely not saying to stop being fierce advocates for our clients. We all lose sleep at night, thinking about our cases, making sure that we are doing the best we can for our clients. (I wish the sleeplessness would end, but after 21 years of the practice of law, I know it won’t.) Unfortunately, some of us on both sides of the “v.” are also lawyers who cannot seem to handle a case without making other counsel on the case simply miserable. These lawyers seem to think that is part of their duty to their clients. I disagree.

Being disrespectful to the court or counsel does not help your case. Nor do endless multipage letters that voice baseless objections or accusations. I certainly know that my clients won’t pay for this type of activity and want me to devote my time to the pertinent issues of the case. Yes, it is part of the job to argue and to advocate, but do not do it at the expense of professional courtesy.

I am encouraged by my “prominent plaintiff lawyer” colleague. I hope this trend continues. Our parents told us to treat others as we would like to be treated, so I hereby remind you all of that, without citing to any legal authority. I say our jobs are hard enough. Please just do the right thing and don’t add unneeded roughness to our lives and yours under the cloak of advocacy. It will make all of our professional lives much better.

There is my message. Have a good day.•

Ms. Mortimer is a member of the DTCI Board of Directors and is a partner in the Schererville office of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. 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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT