ILNews

Indiana Judges Association: Zen and the art of case management

David J. Dreyer
February 1, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

“I only know that I know nothing.”

Socrates

IJA-Dreyer-David I am a big fan of Socrates. After reading Plato’s famous renditions of Socrates’ dialogues in college, I decided to go to law school. It is there, I said to myself, that I can conjure real wisdom, Socratic wisdom. After clearing my mind of preconceived notions and acquiring total knowledge of my unawareness, I imagined a clear, unobscured vision of what is true and just. But when I read Pennoyer v. Neff during my first day in law school (civil procedure), I felt like Pinocchio turning into a donkey. How could such mundaneness have equal stead with the Constitution? I anxiously worried: Is this what law school is ultimately about? But I remained undaunted. On one hand, it seemed somewhat silly to see volumes of caselaw about how to do law, rather than what law is or ought to be. On the other hand, I began to realize that one cannot “practice” law without “practical” knowledge, so to speak.

So over many years, I found a kind of “sub-wisdom.” It came not from law study or research, but rather from living with real world cases. I actually discovered the wonder of civil procedure. Imagine my rapture. Risking permanent geek-ness, I was drawn to methods as much as ideals. I was fascinated with the intersection of intellectual thought and temporal systems, that is, where civil procedure becomes substantive law. Consequently, I stumbled onto the Zen of case management.

Knowing what you don’t know is a precious gift for judges (my non-knowledge could fill a Super Bowl at any venue). Such Socratic perspective allows one to approach a problem with wide-open eyes instead of a made-up mind. Many issues can be better resolved by using the patience it takes to wait for an answer – from a found case, from a fact, from an idea, sometimes just from thinking about it. Lawyers who tackle the difficulties of clients often find it difficult to tackle their own shortcomings, unless they can understand what they don’t know and figure it out. The toughest cases eventually require an intriguing balance of law, intuition, research, non-legal considerations, innovation, creativity and experience. Whatever we lack among these attributes will leave us unwise and feeling lost. Civil procedure teaches us that first things are first. “The larger stones do not lie well without the lesser,” says Socrates. Therefore, case management is the cornerstone of every law practice.

Under the Zen approach, it is taught, “The journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step.” This is why a modified lawyer-Zen technique seems so appropriate for our constant case challenges. Wonder where to start on that mountain of motions? Sometimes it is better to avoid macro-analysis and wander around to find the best way to organize. “A jug fills drop by drop,” says Buddha. So don’t try to figure it out until the jug is full. More importantly, a Zen approach favors the experiential over the theoretical – deriving knowledge from basic everyday circumstances rather than unseen principles. In other words, let the problem come to you. Could civil procedure be a Zen practice? Not by Eastern standards, but case management is a Zen-like practice, full of calm, resourceful mindfulness. An old mentor of mine would always put the case file on the floor 90 days before trial (or whatever available time). It would lay chronologically, including exhibits, depositions, correspondence, the works. It could cover a whole room or more. In this way, he said, he would always see things he had not seen before, realize something new, find something that needed to be done and have the whole case in his visual memory. His wisdom was knowing how to find out what he did not know. Every lawyer has his or her own way – and a lifetime of practice to develop it.

But we face more common case management problems. Lawyers are often tempted to put the cart in front of the horse, or more precisely, the case management order before thinking about the case with your client and opposing counsel. There are few better ways to get on the wrong side of a judge than lack of planning, especially when that final pretrial tempts one to be like Pinocchio and his nose. Be a Zen-master and look around for insight. It surely is in front of you if you can schedule time to see it. Other helpful suggestions include:

• Lay the case on the floor (see above) – yoga mat is optional.

• Find good case management software – designers are usually from California, so they are very Zen-oriented.

• Read Plato – at least you feel like you are wise.

• Figure out a case management plan for each case – find your favorite techniques, but use your style as well the facts, law and the client to logically adapt the file to fit each case.

• Keep a chronological log of pleadings, correspondence, etc., but arrange the paper by priority rather than date – this will let you get to the motions fast (this even works with software/electronic files as well).

And consider making Socrates your secret, silent senior partner. Understanding your lack of knowledge and being open to change may be all the enlightenment you need to be a good case manager.•

__________

Judge David J. Dreyer has been a judge for the Marion Superior Court since 1997. He is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame and Notre Dame Law School. He is a former board member of the Indiana Judges Association. The opinions expressed 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