In his report, the doctor wrote that the plaintiff was exaggerating her symptoms solely for the purpose of secondary gain. That meant that the doctor had chosen to attack my client's credibility based on his own credibility judgment, when he should have been looking at medical tests and diagnostic studies in establishing his opinion. Although it obviously is important for you to figure out what questions need to go in which particular order, it's a good strategy to not be predictable. Don't ask questions in the same order and in the same way. No, they typically don't.
Lawyers generally have problems in doing the right thing in deposition.
These types of remarks mean that an attorney isn't prepared and doesn't have a clear strategy and a clear set of goals in mind for taking the deposition. But the trial advocate must consider every deposition as critical to the case. This is true even when, for example, someone is only being deposed to lay a foundation for a single piece of evidence. Also, too many lawyers have the nonchalant attitude that they've taken 200 or 300 depositions during their career - they therefore think it's okay to shoot from the hip and go into depositions without properly preparing for them.