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. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT