ILNews

Abrams: 5 Things I Wish I Had Known My First Year Of Practicing Law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

jeff abrams ibaAfter having the luxury of practicing law for over 30 years and looking back on the first few years of practice, there are several things that I have learned that I sure wish I had known as a young lawyer. Many are common sense, many are similar to the golden rule—do unto others as you would have them do unto you—and other similar rules of decency that our parents taught us when we were children growing up. I thought it might be beneficial to share some of these thoughts with you as we continue to promote civility among our profession and find ways to educate and train our young lawyers in the practice.

1. Proper Grammar. I occasionally have an opportunity to correct one of my child’s statements in conversation where the use of grammar is like none other. For example, when someone is telling me how he or she is doing something with another person, it makes my skin crawl when they say “him and I went to the basketball game” or “her and I went to the bars last night.” I listen to their statement and interrupt them before they can take a breath or make any other comment and say “Oh, do you mean he and I” or “Do you mean she and I?” I think they get the message but sometimes I wonder.

2. To Tell You the Truth. I find it remarkable that people will be having a conversation, talking about any number of things and out the clear blue they make a comment “And to tell you the truth, I … .” What always rushes into my mind is the obvious question: “So does that imply that half of what you are telling me is not the truth?” If I am working with young attorneys, quite often I will let them know that they should try to avoid using that phrase in their conversation. They do it subconsciously so I suggest they ask their significant other or roommate that they mention to them if they ever hear them use that phrase in conversation.

3. Learning How to Speak in Front of a Group: I have seen attorneys in meetings or in presentations talk as if they were totally unprepared or without any knowledge of topic they were discussing. I really doubt that they were not properly prepared or that they did not know what they should be talking about, but their ability to convey that to a small, intimate group of people or a large group of people is obviously affected in the presentation. I have recommended to attorneys that they consider attending Toastmasters, which meets throughout the city, to help with their oral presentation skills. I am sure there are other groups that also cater to this skill set and would certainly recommend all attorneys take some time to develop these skills. It is critical for attorneys to be able to exhibit the confidence of knowing what they are talking about in making arguments or presentations to clients, potential clients or a judge in a crowded courtroom.

4. You Don’t Have to Win Every Argument. I remember being a young real estate attorney who was trained by brilliant lawyers. I knew everything and had to be right on all accounts. I recall times when I had to prove to other lawyers that I knew everything about whatever we were discussing and that I had to prevail in every point. That approach is not necessarily in the best interest of a client and sometimes can lead to hard feelings. While it is difficult to determine when one becomes “comfortable in their own skin,” the earlier you have the confidence to know when to back down and when to arduously argue is no small task. The sooner that you gain that confidence, the better off you will be in practicing with your fellow attorneys.

5. Help People When You Can. I told a story at my installation about a friend of mine who called me needing a place to stay for a few days since things were not going well at home with his wife. I suggested he come over for a couple of days to get away from the situation. I counseled him on his dissolution, ultimately assisted him with his settlement agreement and was able to preserve his relationship with his children. When he FINALLY moved out five months later, I knew that I had gained a friend for life and that he would always remember what I did for him. He has always recommended me to anybody with whom he came in contact and always spoke incredibly well of me—much better than I deserve and probably far from the truth. While I had no idea that he would be living with me for five months, it seemed to be the right thing to do at the time. Given the opportunity, take the time to help your friend when the call comes. There will always be time to finish the work but the time to help a friend is always NOW.•


If it is just as easy to be nice as it is to be mean,
Then why don’t attorneys’ kindness be more routine,
A happy face is so easy to portray and display,
So jump all in with smiles, don’t go just halfway.
Our bar would be so much more pleasurable if we all learned how to speak,
The occasional use of bad grammar is something we need to tweak,
And if I hear one more time “To tell you the truth…”
I may just pour a tall glass of gin and hold the vermouth.

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT