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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT