ILNews

DTCI: Take a moment to breathe before hitting 'send'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

dtci-thornburg-robertAt the time I am writing and submitting this column to the Indiana Lawyer, Indiana’s primary election is only days away. One can’t help but notice one political ad after another airing in ever-increasing frequency. Whether these advertisements are deemed “attack ads,” “issue spots” or “comparisons,” one thing is clear: the grainy black-and-white photographs and videos of the political opponent with the menacing voice-over intend to portray the opponent in an unflattering light. Indeed, some would claim in an inaccurate or misleading light. The heated and vitriolic rhetoric employed by politicians and commentators on the daily talk shows seems to be on the rise. Many believe that this ever-heated and impolite discourse has seeped out into the legal profession. Indeed, many in the legal community have begun to posit that incivility is on the rise, particularly in regard to email communication. I for one certainly hope not.

Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd Edition, defines civility as “a polite act or utterance.” Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines it as “civilized conduct; especially: courtesy, politeness.” Shouldn’t civility in the legal profession, however, mean more than simply being courteous or polite?

I suspect most would agree that in our adversarial system, civility should be synonymous with professionalism. It must mean that in addition to being polite, courteous and respectful, we must not intentionally belittle, demean or unnecessarily attack our colleagues, adversaries, any party, witness, the judiciary or the judicial staff involved. We must strive to use appropriate language, volume and tone to advance our arguments and our clients’ positions and to disagree with our opponent or the court. Simply stated, treat everyone with consideration and respect, even during heated debates and contentious moments at deposition, hearing or trial.

Oft cited in defense of incivility is the duty to act with reasonable diligence and promptness. (See Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.3.) It is frequently said that an attorney has an obligation to zealously represent his clients. Reasonable diligence, promptness and zealous advocacy, however, do not and should not require one to be impolite or uncivil. In fact, the second sentence of the Preamble to Indiana’s Rules of Professional Conduct reads, “Whether or not engaging in the practice of law, lawyers should conduct themselves honorably.” And the Official Comment to Rule 1.3 explicitly provides, “The lawyer’s duty to act with reasonable diligence does not require the use of offensive tactics or preclude the treating of all persons involved in the legal process with courtesy and respect.” (Prof. Cond. R. 1.3, Comment [1].)

We live in an age where instantaneous communication is the norm. Time to reflect and respond after considered deliberation seems to be vanishing. It is increasingly expected that we respond immediately to every voicemail or email we receive. Indeed, even correspondence is increasingly being sent via facsimile or as an attachment to an email.

Most can recite examples of email being a large source of incivility in the practice. Email incivility can be avoided. Clicking the “send” button before allowing time for reflection can escalate a contentious situation. In fact, all can easily recall a situation where something became more contentious because of email. The next time – before hitting “send” – give yourself some space and time to deliberate and to let the emotion drain. Type the message, but let it sit. Return to the message later, reread it, and then hit “send” after some time for reflection and consideration. Even consider having a respected colleague read it to ensure that your tone is correct. Take a breath before hitting “send.” In this election year filled with negative ads, speeches and attacks, let us all strive to disagree when necessary, with respect and without being disagreeable.•

__________

Robert B. Thornburg is a member in the Indianapolis office of Frost Brown Todd and sits on the DTCI Board of Directors. 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. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT