ILNews

Litigation training in short supply

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Fewer jury trials during the past decade have created concern that young lawyers are losing the ability to gain real-world litigation experience, leading more lawyers to turn to law schools and internal firm training to get what has been a fixture in the practice of law.

State courts have seen the number of trials drop by more than 500 between the years 2000 and 2010, which attorneys attribute to an increased use of mediation. Court statistics released by the state judiciary’s administrative division show that 1,514 jury trials occurred last year; in 2005, there were 2,450 jury trials.

herzog_david-mug.jpg Herzog

“Litigation still drives our system,” said Valparaiso University Law School professor David Vandercoy, who teaches skills training and heads up the school’s legal clinic. “We’re moving forward on the thought that even with a decline in jury trials, our system is still adversarial in nature, and so lawyers need to be equipped to handle these litigation issues even if they can’t get the experience from actually being in court.”

At Valparaiso, Vandercoy said half of the third-year law class does firm externships to help provide that experience.

“Most of our students see that litigation training as something that makes them more marketable,” he said. “They need these skills whether they’re litigating or not.”

Law firms agree about the importance of litigation exposure. Many have mentoring programs for associates or send younger attorneys to litigation training programs. Some have mock courtrooms – Faegre Baker Daniels has one in its Minnesota office.

Faegre Baker Daniels partner David Herzog, a longtime litigator at the trial and appellate level, said his firm sends third-year litigation associates to the National Institute for Trial Advocacy to learn those skills.

“It’s getting harder and harder to get that experience, and while NITA is a great resource, there’s no substitute for real-life trial experience,” he said. “You aren’t ever going to see an end to litigation and jury trials because sometimes reasonable people disagree, and the only way to resolve a dispute is to go to court.”

Herzog, like many lawyers, attributes the decline in litigation experience to the increase in alternative dispute resolution. He said attorneys used to be responsible to maneuver mediation during the course of litigation, but now that role has been largely transferred to neutral mediators. Herzog thinks the decrease in jury trials has actually had a negative impact on attorney-to-attorney mediation.

“The saying used to be that you settle cases on the courthouse steps … because that’s when the sense of real urgency and pertinent risk sets in,” Herzog said. “Having that trial experience makes you appreciate the risks of litigation and gives you credibility with opposing counsel when trying to settle a case. If you’ve never tried a case, and you sit across the table trying to get a specific number, that lack of experience is a credible threat to your bottom line.”

experience-chart.gifIndianapolis attorney Kara Kapke with Barnes & Thornburg, who’s been with the firm since 2005, tries to weave courtroom-specific aspects of a case into all of her litigation tasks. For example, when she’s doing a deposition or planning for motion writing, she often asks herself what might happen in court and how she would respond.

“Even if you’re not on your feet in court, you’re at least keeping your mind fresh about what litigation might throw at you and how you can handle that,” she said.

Her colleague, partner Scott Murray, said that the firm pairs younger attorneys with seasoned litigators, sends associates to training and also puts them on the front lines of arbitration where they can get experience that’s similar to what they might face in a courtroom. He recalled how a team of associates divided its handling of questions, motions and other aspects of arbitration against a lead partner at a New York law firm.

“You have to get that experience where you can, and these days it’s tougher to find those opportunities,” he said.

bruess-charles-mug.jpg Bruess

Retired attorney Charles Bruess in Brownsburg – who practiced law 30 years at Barnes & Thornburg before becoming a courtroom deputy for U.S. Judge David Hamilton in the Southern District of Indiana – has been working for the past three years to help teach what he describes as “the lost art of litigation” to the legal community. He wrote the book “What You Didn’t Learn in Law School about Trial Practice,” in 2007, and since then, he’s been teaching continuing legal education and consulting with attorneys on litigation practices he observed during his career.

Bruess is working with the Indiana State Bar Association to possibly offer free CLE on the topic of litigation, and he hopes that more of the legal community is willing to embrace the CLE to learn the litigation lessons that come from first-hand experience.

Lawyers who have attended Bruess’ sessions have told him that they took his lessons with them into practice. These can be simple tasks such as knowing to look up a judge’s local rules before stepping into court and being prepared for objections to not be recorded if the lawyer is not standing up, Bruess said.

“I get a lot of personal satisfaction from that, bumping into people who say they’ve asked themselves a question at a deposition or thought about something before going into court,” he said. “These things may never happen to you as a practicing lawyer, but at least you’ll know they are possible in litigation and you can be ready.”•

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