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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT