ILNews

DTCI: Early mentors influenced me as an attorney

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

DTCI donald smithHow did I turn out like this? After practicing law for 32 years, I decided it was time to look back and examine the reasons that I behave certain ways.

As a second-year law student, I was fortunate to land a job as a law clerk with the management labor law firm of Roberts Ryder Rogers & Neighbours. My clerkship then turned into an associate position upon graduation from law school. Not only did I learn to practice law, but I also learned how to act like a lawyer. The mentors that I had at that firm and the things I learned from them continue to affect me today.

Why have I not embraced “business casual attire?” I never saw Bill Roberts at work without his suit jacket on. I admire the man to this day and continue to honor him by wearing a suit and tie to work each day.

Why don’t I pound the table and scream at my opponents? As a new associate, I carried Henry Ryder’s briefcase into collective bargaining negotiations. We were in the middle of heated negotiations with the Teamsters Union and the union rep was getting frustrated with the company’s proposals. The rep declared to his negotiating committee, “We’re done!” He stood up to lead his “troops” out of the room. Instead of meeting fire with fire, Henry calmly reminded the rep, “Harry, you know that’s not our final proposal.” Henry’s reasonable tone and demeanor completely deflated the rep’s bravado, and he embarrassedly slipped back into his chair. If Henry had not diffused that situation with his calm demeanor, I would bet the union would still be out on strike today.

Why don’t I demonstrate frustration when witnesses throw curve balls from the witness stand? Jack Rogers took me to arbitrations. I fondly remember a case in which the grievant, terminated for stealing from his employer, appeared at the hearing wearing a Boy Scout uniform. Jack’s first question during cross-examination was, “Are you going to a Jamboree this afternoon?” I am convinced the arbitrator did not hear another word the witness said (and I know it was not my stellar post-hearing brief that won the case for us that day).

Why do I avoid seeking extensions of time? Owen “Bud” Neighbours gave me some practical advice when I was considering getting an extension of time for filing something. He said, “Avoid seeking extensions of time. A good lawyer is not going to be any less busy 30 days from now.”

Why do I try to treat everyone with respect? D. Reed Scism consistently showed that he genuinely cared about people. For four years, our offices were separated by a common wall, and I never heard him raise his voice, but I often heard him genuinely act interested when his secretary would tell him a story about her family.

Why do I use subheadings in long letters and briefs? The recruiting partner, Greg Utken, suggested that the reader would appreciate it, and it would be more persuasive if I included subheadings to provide him with a road map for my argument. I owe Greg not only for teaching me the benefit of using subheadings, but I also owe him for hiring me, selling me my first house, and most importantly, introducing me to my bride.

Why am I not satisfied with just doing work for my current clients? No matter how many clients John Neighbours had, he was always looking for more. He was particularly successful at “working a room.” While I sometimes got stuck in a conversation and did not know how to move on gracefully, it was fascinating to watch John move from conversation to conversation. He was very successful in turning those conversations into business.

Why am I envious when an attorney cites cases from memory? David Miller worked at the National Labor Relations Board before he came to work for the firm. I marveled at his memory when asking me to do research on some obscure point of labor law. He would tell me, “You should find a case on that in Volume 267 of the Labor Reporter.” He was usually correct. I wish I had that recall.

I publicly thank my mentors for training and teaching me in the early years of my practice. Their impact on me continues. Although I am still a work in progress, I sincerely believe I was taught by an extraordinary group of men. Thank you, gentlemen, for mentoring me. (And special thanks to my secretary, Debbie Richards, for teaching me the proper etiquette for dictating, including her explicit instruction to turn off the dictaphone before sneezing, coughing or belching!)•

__________

Mr. Smith is a partner at Riley Bennett & Egloff in Indianapolis and is a director of DTCI. 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. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  2. Low energy. Next!

  3. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  4. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

  5. GMA Ranger, I, too, was warned against posting on how the Ind govt was attempting to destroy me professionally, and visit great costs and even destitution upon my family through their processing. No doubt the discussion in Indy today is likely how to ban me from this site (I expect I soon will be), just as they have banned me from emailing them at the BLE and Office of Bar Admission and ADA coordinator -- or, if that fails, whether they can file a complaint against my Kansas or SCOTUS law license for telling just how they operate and offering all of my files over the past decade to any of good will. The elitist insiders running the Hoosier social control mechanisms realize that knowledge and a unified response will be the end of their unjust reign. They fear exposure and accountability. I was banned for life from the Indiana bar for questioning government processing, that is, for being a whistleblower. Hoosier whistleblowers suffer much. I have no doubt, Gma Ranger, of what you report. They fear us, but realize as long as they keep us in fear of them, they can control us. Kinda like the kids' show Ants. Tyrannical governments the world over are being shaken by empowered citizens. Hoosiers dealing with The Capitol are often dealing with tyranny. Time to rise up: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/17/governments-struggling-to-retain-trust-of-citizens-global-survey-finds Back to the Founders! MAGA!

ADVERTISEMENT