DTCI: Still learning after all these years in practice

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

DTCI donald smithThe practice of law is still exciting and challenging for me, even as I approach my 34th year of practice. It has been the right career for me (even though a recent opportunity to attend a press conference after an IU basketball game reminded me of my earlier desire to become a television sportscaster). I am not so sure I would still be learning after all these years if I had chosen another path.

There is a lot about the practice of law that I don’t know, but the following are some of the lessons I have learned.

First, no matter how good you think your performance at trial was, you are not going to win every case. One example in particular taught me that my performance at trial is secondary compared to the impact of witnesses on the minds of the jurors. After defending an employer in a wrongful-termination case before a jury in federal court, I thought my performance had been strong. I was shocked when the jury returned its verdict in favor of the former employee. The judge allowed us to receive feedback from the jury, a practice that has long since been eliminated (much to my disappointment). The key piece of evidence in the jurors’ minds was that the employer’s primary witness answered my questions confidently, but when she responded to cross-examination, her voice trailed off at the end of her answers. Because of that, the jurors believed she was not credible, and we lost the case.

Second, I have learned that it is important to get to know attorneys outside my law firm on a personal basis. Too often, I have assumed that my adversaries’ lives are defined by the clients they represent. Attorneys are able to work toward the common goal of resolving a case if they get to know each other and learn about their lives outside the adversarial process. I have developed friendships with attorneys who share my interests in youth sports, for instance, that have tempered our disputes over legal matters. This does not mean that either side is less zealous in advocating a legitimate position, but it appears that both sides are more reasonable when the attorneys know and respect each other.

Another reason to get to know attorneys outside their practices is that attorneys truly are colorful characters. One such character, an admitted “car buff,” shares a building with my firm. He saw me in the parking lot with my Ford Mustang. He told me that he had a limited edition replica of the 1968 Mustang from “Bullitt,” starring Steve McQueen. The next day he drove his “Bullitt” Mustang to work and offered to let me drive it. He was on his way to court with clients, but he suggested that I get the keys from his secretary. I sheepishly went to his office and asked his secretary for the keys. I wanted just to start the car to hear its engine, but she encouraged me to take it for a spin because she knew her boss would enjoy knowing that I had driven it. I felt like a 16-year-old when I punched the accelerator going down Pennsylvania Street with the throaty engine revving up. So, getting to know other attorneys can also be a lot of fun.

Third, I have learned that being a mentor usually results in my learning more than my mentee. I have been blessed with opportunities to mentor law students and new attorneys. Their questions have caused me to examine my practice in explaining how things are done or pondering how things could be improved. I am convinced that I have received more from the relationships than I have provided to my mentees.

The fourth lesson is that there continues to be a place for all attorneys – from solo practitioners to those who practice in mega firms or in-house. I started practicing in a mid-sized boutique labor and employment law firm and then moved to a small general litigation firm that has grown to a mid-sized business and litigation firm. A consultant advised our small firm that we needed to merge with a larger firm to be successful. I have seen many firms merge over the years, and I assume they have been successful, but we have avoided such mergers and still seem to be doing pretty well despite the consultant’s prognostication.

I certainly do not claim to have learned all that I can in the practice of law, but what I have learned is that there is no career path better suited to me.•


Donald Smith is a partner in the Indianapolis firm of Riley Bennett & Egloff and is a director of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.