ILNews

The art of listening

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When a client visits attorney John Rowe’s law office, Rowe’s first priority is to figure out what the client wants. That may sound like a simple task, but sometimes he’s got to chip away at the surface to discover the real reason someone needs his assistance.

“Customarily, I’ll ask them what their goals are, what’s on their mind,” he said. “And then we can ask questions based on that to help zero-in more accurately on that which is their underlying concern, which may be what they expressed or it may be something else.”

Rowe and like-minded attorneys say that in order to serve clients effectively, they have to devote their full attention to what their clients say and how they’re saying it. Word choice, intonation and subtle changes in body language may sometimes reveal a truth that an inattentive attorney may miss. And lawyers who understand the distinction between hearing and listening may have an advantage over those who don’t.

Being respectful

Mark Torma, a lawyer with South Bend’s Drendall Law Office, said that he has learned through discussions with other lawyers that people in his profession may not necessarily be putting the client’s needs first.

“All too often, it’s easier to figure out what’s important to you – what’s more profitable, what’s more interesting,” he said.

Torma recently became the interim executive director of the Volunteer Lawyer Network, based in St. Joseph County. He said many pro bono clients, based on their lack of experience interacting with lawyers, may not be able to express the problems they’re trying to solve. But if he doesn’t let them speak freely, the attorney-client relationship may be off to a rocky start.

“If you cut them short, don’t give them time to breathe and tell their story, generally you don’t get as much cooperation from them,” Torma said. “The important thing to do is to pay attention to the value the client gives each of the cases, and that’s not easy to do.”

Rowe shares a similar philosophy.

“What the people are saying and what they mean likely are not the same,” Rowe said. “And unless I listen appropriately and do my best to determine not only what they are saying but what they mean, then my ability to react adequately – to teach or advise depending upon the need – wastes my time and their money,” he said.

Rowe’s office is in Linton, a town of less than 6,000 people, about 30 miles southeast of Terre Haute, and he thinks that may give him an advantage in reading his clients.

“I am very blessed in that my practice is made up of a lot of folks in whose culture I’ve grown up. That is, it’s a rural, agricultural mining community. When they say something, that elicits all sorts of triggers,” he said. “So I think when we use our vocabulary, our body language, it gives me a leg up on understanding what they’re really saying.”

Watching for cues

Skilled communicators understand that a person’s body language may reveal much more than the spoken word. But if you’re not watching for those cues, you may be missing out on important information.

Barnes & Thornburg litigator Jimmie McMillian has witnessed this behavior in depositions.

“I think part of listening is looking at body language, knowing when it seems like the witness seems like they want to provide a little bit more,” McMillian said. “Sometimes, they’ll look down like they’re thinking – and if you’re not looking at them, you don’t realize that they’re actually thinking about whether they should say the next thing.”

In the public setting of a courtroom, visual cues can help an attorney understand what a witness may be withholding, Torma explained.

“I often think that in the courtroom specifically, for both the lawyers and the clients who are often speaking as witnesses, what’s even more important than listening is watching because everyone is very much aware that they are being recorded,” Torma said. “So it’s actually more important to pay attention to what they do when they’re not talking. It’s fairly nerve-wracking for people, so they take some time to process what they’re going to say.”

Going off-script

McMillian said one challenge in questioning people is that they don’t always react as expected. You may have a long list of questions, neatly arranged in the order you prefer to ask them. But making the most of an interview requires flexibility.

“Sometimes it’s hard to bear off that outline and ask good follow-up questions, as opposed to being locked to the outline and being more focused on your next question than the witness’ answer,” he said.

St. Joseph Superior Judge Jenny Pitts Manier has seen in her courtroom examples of both artful questioning and amateur interrogation. In a recent trial, one attorney would question a witness, listen carefully to the response and then follow up with a question that showed he was paying attention.

“It seemed to be the fruit of attentive listening and very useful trial technique – not for just that person’s client, but also the jury,” she said.

In the same case, the opposing counsel asked essentially the same questions, as if he had not been paying attention.

“If one were reading a jury, one might be able to discern a bit of tedium on the part of the jury,” Manier said.

Alienating a jury may not be the best trial tactic, and sometimes it begins early on, before the jury has been chosen.

“I’ve experienced that many years ago in jury selection, where the counsel rising to do voir dire, it was as if he had been in another building,” she said. That attorney, she recalled, had obviously not listened to the questions that had already been asked of the jury pool.

Manier said that “when you call people off the streets out of their lives and ask them to suspend their lives for this process,” the least attorneys can do is be respectful and attentive and not waste jurors’ time by asking them to answer the same questions again and again.

McMillian McMillian

Narrowing your focus

To be attentive – to be in the moment – attorneys can’t engage in multitasking.

“It’s an art to be patient,” McMillian said. “I also think part of being a good listener is being able to clear out all of the other stuff that we as lawyers have cluttering our minds. There’s kind of this pressure today to get onto the next case, the next thing, the next matter, be efficient. There’s this pressure to move extremely fast all the time. And to be a good listener, sometimes you have to clear all of that out. For the next 10 minutes, an hour, whatever it takes, I’m going to look and think and focus solely on you.”•
 

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