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. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT