ILNews

DTCI: Young attorneys should rely on their own devices at work

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

kevin tyra DTCIElbert Hubbard was a writer in the Horatio Alger vein in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. His best-known essay, “A Message to Garcia” (1899), tells a story from the Spanish-American War. President William McKinley needed a letter delivered to Gen. Calixto Garcia, a rebel commander somewhere in the mountains of Cuba. One of his advisors recommended Lt. Andrew Rowan.

McKinley gave Rowan the letter. Rowan took the letter without a word and departed. Four days later, Rowan landed by night on the Cuban coast. Three weeks later, Rowan appeared on the far side of the island, having delivered the letter to Garcia.

Hubbard’s point in the story is that Rowan did not ask the president, “How am I supposed to find Garcia?” Rowan had the confidence and resourcefulness to figure that out on his own, rather than bothering his superior with such questions. Hubbard asserted that such people are the ones who succeed in life, as opposed to those who need everything spelled out for them.

This is a useful lesson for today’s law firm associates, as well as any relatively junior attorney, whether in a corporate legal department, government agency or elsewhere. To the extent practicable, young attorneys should rely on their own devices to determine what needs to be done, and how to do it, rather than expect the more senior attorney to spell it out for them.

There are limits to this, of course. It behooves the more senior attorney to provide guidance to the subordinate when appropriate. If, for example, the more senior attorney already has specific themes or ideas in mind for the motion for summary judgment, he should share those with the subordinate at the outset. And if the more senior attorney is well versed on an issue and the subordinate has virtually no experience, it makes sense to provide some guidance that may significantly reduce the time the subordinate spends on the project, which presumably the client would appreciate. But the first thought of the associate should be, “How can I figure this out for myself?”

Which brings me to the concept of “completed staff work.” I learned this as a young Navy JAG officer assigned for two years as a ship’s legal officer 30 years ago (I also learned that the shell-backing ceremony when the ship crosses the equator is really disgusting, but that’s a different story).

When making either a written or an oral report to the commanding officer, the staff officer is expected to answer, or be ready to answer, all foreseeable questions the commanding officer may have that were raised in the report. If, for example, you recommend filing court-martial charges against a sailor, also describe (or be prepared to describe) the witnesses and evidence anticipated by both the prosecution and defense and analyze the likely outcome of the court-martial, as well as any blow-back, such as the effect on crew morale.

If the commanding officer has any questions (particularly any unanswered questions) at the end of your report, you have failed to produce completed staff work.

And for any question the commanding officer may have for you at any time, there are only two acceptable answers: (1) a correct, complete and substantive answer to the question; or (2) “I don’t know, Captain, but I will find out and report back to you promptly.”

This concept is fully applicable to just about everything we do in the civilian legal profession as well. It applies to memoranda and other work-product for more senior attorneys in the office, as well as to pleadings to the court.

Where many attorneys are more likely to fall short in this regard is in communications to the client (particularly the corporate or claim-department client).

When you report to the client that you have received the opposing party’s responses to your written discovery, do you highlight what is significant about the responses? What is different from the information you previously had? And what are the next steps, leading to what ultimate disposition in the case?

When you review your work-product, if you put yourself in the shoes of the recipient and can think of no more questions that you have left unanswered, you have likely achieved completed staff work, and you are ready to hit “Send.”•

__________

Kevin C. Tyra is a director of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana and the principal of The Tyra Law Firm P.C. in Indianapolis. The opinions 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