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

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