ILNews

DTCI: What happened to practicing ‘civil’ litigation?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

DTCI donald smithIt is unusual to open a lawyers’ magazine without seeing an article about civility. What happened to “civil” litigation? It must be like the weather – a lot of people are writing about it, but no one seems to be doing anything about it.

My remarks are not based on scientific studies, and I have no empirical data to support them. My opinions are based solely on my own experience as I wander through this career based primarily on civil litigation.

We practice in a world that is becoming less and less personal. Rarely these days does an attorney meet with opposing counsel to discuss an issue. Instead, he snaps off an email, often riddled with abbreviations and misspellings. The message that comes across is that the attorney cares too little about his position in the case to contemplate what is being said, review it and send a carefully drafted message.

Please don’t get me wrong. I love that I can send emails back and forth efficiently; but emails lead to an impersonal approach to the practice of law.

A well-timed telephone call can be disarming, yet remain very civil. Recently – instead of receiving an email telling me that my client’s position was sanctionable and I was incompetent – I received a call from the opposing counsel. He happened to be older than I (which is getting rarer these days) and with a gentlemanly Southern drawl, he explained his client’s case and the position it was taking. The telephone conversation set the tone for our continued litigation. It was civil. Although we attacked our opponent’s positions, we never attacked our opponents.

Let’s contrast that approach with another recent incident. A case was set for hearing. The opposing attorney and I spoke briefly while we were waiting for our case to be called, but the attorney never said anything about wanting a continuance. It was only when we were before the judge that the attorney – for the first time – advised that his client wanted to testify, but he was not going to appear for the hearing that day. The attorney made no attempt to contact me about a continuance in advance of the hearing or even to advise me while we were waiting for our case to be called. That shows a lack of civility.

Another reason I believe lawyers are less civil to each other is that there is less time for mentoring new attorneys. During the recent economic crisis, fewer law school graduates were able to secure jobs, so they “hung a shingle” to practice by themselves. Although I admire the entrepreneurial spirit, I think it has resulted in a generation of attorneys who have become isolated, without mentors and co-workers to provide guidance. Mentors and co-workers help to temper a new lawyer’s primal instincts when it comes to litigating a case.

In addition, the economic pressures on both new attorneys and law firms have provided for fewer opportunities for new lawyers to accompany senior attorneys to depositions, conferences with clients or trials. I learned much about the practice of law from spending time with more senior attorneys and observing their interactions with other lawyers.

As the practice of law has become less personal, it is easier to attack the other attorney without considering the consequences. We all know attorneys who draw our ire with scathing emails only to find them suddenly civil when we are face-to-face. There used to be an emotional filter when an attorney dictated a letter that was typed by a secretary. It took time for the letter to be typed, so there was an opportunity for the lawyer to cool off before he received the dictation back from the secretary. It is now too easy for attorneys to send those nasty emails themselves while they are still upset.

Perhaps a final reason in my anecdotal examination of why litigators are not as civil to each other is the speed at which the practice of law now operates. Attorneys used to mail letters and could count on a few days before receipt. Then came the fax machine, which cut down the mailing time. Email later took hold for instantaneous communication. I am not saying these are bad developments, but they do lend themselves to the impersonal nature of the practice of law, which in turn leads to incivility.

So, the next time we have a case together, do not hesitate to pick up the phone and call me. If I do not pick up the call immediately, it is because I have been swamped by all of these emails that other attorneys are sending me.•

__________

Mr. Smith is a partner in Riley Bennett & Egloff LLP in Indianapolis and is a member of the DTCI board of directors. The opinions expressed here 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