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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT