Source: https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/appellate_advocacy/legal-profession/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:43:28+00:00

Document:
Social media is an interesting experiment. Because of my diverse legal background, I am friends with people who identify with viewpoints from every shade of the political and social spectrum, and I usually enjoy hearing these different perspectives on issues and try to learn from them. But as time passes, I see fewer shades and more rigid, black-and-white positions. There is less thoughtful sharing and more knee-jerk accusation.
This way of thinking in terms of "us" versus "them" is by no means new, but it does seem to be increasingly fortified in our public and private discussions from everything to politics to how we view history. Just try to take a thoughtful, nuanced position on anything from immigration to Civil War monuments (or anything relating to Donald Trump), and you'll quickly see my point.
Perhaps no other profession is as deeply grounded in this adversarial perspective as the law. The idea is reinforced in every filing and letter through the use of a simple "v." Indeed, our modern system has roots in an older system that permitted litigants to hire champions who would bludgeon each other to death or submission to prove their case. Russel, M.J., Trial by Battle Procedure in Writs of Right and Criminal Appeals, 51 Law and History Review 123–134 (1983).
When I serve as counsel, I do so aggressively and make every proper effort to prevail over the party who is "versus" my client. But we have become more civilized over the years in how that process works. Today, lawyers who demonize the other party, or who buy into the "hired gun" mentality and choose to vilify their counsel, are serving neither their clients, themselves, the legal system, or their society.
I serve as, and alongside, trial counsel in small and in multi-million dollar cases as both defense and plaintiff's trial counsel and as appellate counsel. In doing so, I often see the harm that arises from the refusal to see the other side's perspective. We must be zealous advocates as attorneys, but to be effective means we must have a willingness to see the "us" in the other side.
Last week I wrote about the costs of contentious litigation in terms of economic loss and gain, and its impact on credibility. But demonizing our opponents also puts on blinders. What if the claimants aren't just money hungry but are actually injured or their business has been genuinely impacted? What if the defendants really did not intend any of the harm they caused, but did their best to avoid it? What if someone or something else was to blame? What if the failure to disclose or produce important documents by opposing counsel really was a mistake?
Turning opposing counsel or parties into villains means we might not ask these questions, because we assume the answer. If we don't assume the worst, if we are willing to put ourselves in the other side's shoes, if we can see "them" as "us," then we can see more adequately the dangers in our own case and the merits in the other side's position. As a result, we can more appropriately plead and argue our cases, we can more accurately evaluate and forecast outcomes, and we can more readily reach long-term solutions for our clients rather than simply trying to "win" each individual point of contention.
Aside from raising disciplinary issues, violating this rule can harm our clients. In one Florida car wreck case, trial counsel argued that that the defense did not want the jury to be fair and reasonable, but had instead brought a "bogus counterclaim to make it look like they have something to argue about," and that, in contrast to the defense witnesses, his client was not going to lie. Airport Rent-A-Center Car, Inc. v. Lewis, 701 So. 2nd 893, 896 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987). On appeal, the court concluded that the defendant was denied a fair trial and reversed the award.
Of course, that means that this tactic worked at trial. Sometimes, you can bludgeon your opponent into submission by demonizing them. At least temporarily. But the costs continue to accumulate personally, professionally, and systemically. And that system is increasingly aware of the problem and fighting back. If you have this tendency, you should fight it back as well.
As an appellate attorney, I often find myself serving as both attorney and counselor to trial lawyers. As an appellate attorney at trial, I am trying to make sure error is preserved and that we are right on the law and its presentation to the court. As a counselor, I often find myself trying to calm down the rhetoric and rancor.
While the days of "Rambo litigation" have died down a bit, there is still a strong current of thinking in the law that if you aren't being angry and contentious, you just aren't passionate enough about your case. I have always disagreed. I believe that passion is important, but that you can be passionate without being contentious, and that courtesy, instead, is actually more persuasive. Over time, that belief has proven out, as I hear from judges and justices and juries about how they perceive the bluster in a negative light.
While the first part of the article largely recounts Huang's (extraordinary) journey through higher education, what caught my attention was his discussion of lawyers, mindfulness, and happiness. Huang was a professor of mathematics and economics before he went to law school and became a law professor, and his insights into the profession are unique.
For instance, Huang notes studies showing that students tend to enter law school focused on intrinsic values, like the desire to do good, help the vulnerable, and improve society in general. By graduation, they have been altered, and tend to focus on extrinsic values relating to class rank, grades, honors, and salary offers. This journey leaves them scarred: one survey of law students showed that one-quarter to one-third of respondents reported frequent binge drinking or misuse of drugs, and/or mental health challenges, while another Yale survey showed that 70% of the law students surveyed suffered from some type of mental health issue.
Worse yet, when they graduate, they often see that their hostility is financially rewarded, and this behavior is reinforced. Some clients seek out "Rambo" lawyers who will be argumentative and antagonistic, thinking such attorneys are the most effective. And the rules of civil and criminal procedure often appear to incentivize and reward that mindset. Thus, Huang reasons, "An economically-minded observer might simply characterize the unhealthiness of law practice and law school as just additional costs of being a lawyer and law student, albeit emotional health, mental health and physical health costs that are hard to perhaps measure, observe, quantify, and verify."
Those costs, while difficult to measure, are simply too high. Lawyers are the most frequently depressed occupational group in the United States. To cope with that depression and anxiety, many lawyers self-medicate with alcohol or drugs. Attorney overdose and suicide rates are very high. This has not only a personal cost, but a professional one as well.
Huang leaves out another category of costs: the perception of our judges and juries. One need practice only a short time to discover that judges negatively view hostility in those who appear before them. Credibility before the court is hard to quantify, but communication theory since at least Aristotle suggests that its loss has a high (and lasting) cost in lawyer effectiveness before our increasingly frustrated courts.
But even without those costs in his calculations, Huang notes that a recent meta-synthesis of several empirical studies revealed that both clients and attorneys tend to value "soft skills" that relate to empathy and integrity more than they do "hard" expertise. Attorneys value the ability to assess deals and propose solutions, the ability to assess and mitigate risks, honoring commitments, delegation to and management of support staff, integrity and trustworthiness, keeping information confidential, punctuality, and treating others with courtesy and respect. Clients, similarly, value lawyers who accurately estimate and clearly explain attorney fees, communicate with clients, are empathetic, listen well, are responsive to clients, are respectful, have strategic problem solving skills, are trustworthy, and who understand client needs. In other words, other lawyers and clients do not value naked aggression as much as they value other skills that are incompatible with that approach.
What, then, can we draw from this? Huang and the resources he cites (as well as personal experience) indicate that the costs of hostile "Rambo" litigation are simply too high to justify any value that might be perceived to lie in such conduct. This attitude and practice does not lead to personal happiness, but rather leads to high personal costs as well as a loss of credibility with the legal community and courts. And all in the name of trying to enhance one "skill" of questionable worth, while eliminating many other soft skills that clients find truly valuable.
You can be a zealous advocate without being a jerk about it. I have always believed it's the right way to practice, and my anecdotal experience is that it is more effective. It's good to know it makes sense empirically, too.
(Image credit: Scene from a December 1883 incident in a Prescott, Arizona courtroom during the trial of Kelsey v. McAteer, source unknown (likely the local Prescott newspaper), wherein the attorneys' fight over the admissibility of an affidavit escalated into a battle with a knife and gun in the courtroom. For more information: https://www.historynet.com/disorder-in-the-court-the-lamentable-occurence.htm).
As lawyers, we work in words. In “The Simple Secrets for Writing a Killer Brief,” Daniel Karon encourages us to have a “writer’s toolbox.” In his article, Mr. Karon lists the books in his toolbox, which he describes as "a modest but functioning writing library."
While I also have a "modest but functioning writing library," I use more than books to help me write. Over the next several posts, I will explore different facets of my writer’s toolbox. I will describe my electronic writing bank, writing journal, and tech tools.
Today, I focus on my writer's library.
This book does more than list grammar rules. It provides writing and proofreading tips specifically for legal writing. I like that it incorporates legal-citation rules for capitalization and abbreviations along with the grammar mechanics. The index is thorough and helps me quickly locate what I need in the text.
This is my "Strunk and White" for legal writing. It is a simple, short, and straightforward guide to writing well. Read this book. Implement its suggestions. You will become a better writer.
My clerkship with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court taught me that judges care about citation. Judges are meticulous about citation in their writing and respect attorneys who are as well.
I cut through the massive amount of rules in The Bluebook by using the "Quick Reference" section on the back cover, the Bluepages, and index. I tab pages for rules on cases, statutes, quotations, and abbreviations.
This book translates The Bluebook into understandable English. It helped me comprehend some of the more complicated, convoluted citation rules. When I have a citation question, I consult this book first.
This book provides step-by-step instructions for every part of the brief-writing process. It is direct and easy to understand. Each chapter contains numerous examples.
This is a great resource on persuasion. It explains how to engage the court through effective advocacy. The critiquing checklists for each section of a brief are invaluable.
My final go-to reference is an app. I use both the dictionary and thesaurus features.
What's in your writer's library?
Please share your favorite resources in the comments section. I would enjoy hearing and learning from you.
The week between Christmas and New Year's always feels magical to me. It's like it doesn't count against time, and once Christmas zone is entered, it transports me without notation to the first of January. A lost week.
When I was in practice, though, it was anything but. I can't remember a week between these two points where I wasn't buried deep in writing memos and responses. It was not a time of renewal or relaxation. And as a single mom, it did nothing to help me feel good about being a mother. Hardly a time for balance or reconnection.
As a law professor, however, I now have this glorious downtime, and it gives me the opportunity to think about things. It is a privilege for which I am duly grateful. Since I've been writing here I've gravitated toward ethical issues, a real surprise since I had no special interest and do not teach in the area. Despite that, I have now developed a profound interest in ethics and look for those specific events in legal practice to share here.
Taking advantage of this extraordinary privilege of time off between Christmas and New Year's I am currently traveling to Reykjavik. I am not sure what came over me to visit the land of fire and ice during the time of year where there are only four hours of daylight, but I will try anything once. On my Uber ride to airport I told my driver I was a lawyer. He told me of his terrible experience he had with lawyers. He apologized at the end of the ride and said he hope he had not ruined my trip. He most certainly had not. He set me on fire.
Why is it that so many of the stories that everyday people have about lawyers is how bad they are? From our point of view we work very hard to not make that so, but when we poll the public, we only hear more bad lawyer jokes.
My driver's story was not catastrophic. He had been in a car accident; he was at a stop sign, another driver swerved across the line, she was avoiding a crash on her side of the road. He was not injured but his truck was totaled. His car was in the tow yard, waiting to be fixed, but his insurance would not pay, saying he was at fault. He was not at fault, but needed help to nudge the insurance company. He called many lawyers in town (many prominent names I won't mention here) and none of them would help him. The first question he was asked at each office he called, "Are you injured?" When he said no, they referred him on to someone else. Lawyers are also business people, and we understand exactly what was happening. His case was not worth much without a personal injury. Since that time he has told everyone he knows not to believe the ads on tv. Those lawyers will not get you $300,000 for your car accident. Unless you are in a wheelchair, don't bother calling for help.
My driver did find one young lawyer to help him with his claim. This lawyer knew the claim was not worth much, but for some reason had it in his heart to help. My driver, an older gentleman, told me how he cried when this one lawyer took the time to help him figure this out.
To me, this small assistance is what is gravely needed in legal practice. The cost of legal education is astronomical and does not lend itself to taking on small claims and modest clients. Many other things factor into the cost of legal service that drives the cost up for clients. In the meantime, so many people who need simple help get shuffled around and likely end up not being able to assert their claims.
As a profession we have lots of high level awareness of this problem, but in my estimation it is frequently superficial. We have mandatory pro bono, we have many legal clinics dedicated to the indigent, we have guaranteed representation for criminal clients. But we do not have an industry where everyday people can seek legal advice for a reasonable price. So many people who could benefit from legal counseling forego it because of the cost, or because they don't know how beneficial it would be for them. Simply to have their affairs in order is something everyone should be able to take advantage of.
Perhaps I am wrong in this assessment, but it has been my impression for a long time, and this impression was reaffirmed just today. I would like to hear from our wide variety of readers if as legal professionals we are on the right track, or whether it is time for us to reassess and maybe realign our practice models. After all, the new year is upon us, and this is the perfect time for New Year's resolutions.
Here's wishing everyone a happy and healthy New Year. I hope we all find time to contemplate what matters and make concrete steps toward making life meaningful for ourselves, and for those around us.
Just as the waltz (three beats) and the chord (three notes) have a pleasant resonance, words or phrases that come in threes have a similar effect on a reader. Famously, in his Gettysburg Address, President Lincoln emphasized that the Civil War was fought to preserve “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” If concision were Lincoln’s only aim, he might have instead said the war preserved “the people’s government.” And yet, even in his brief 272-word address, Lincoln chose to use the Rule of Three to make the point. The result is a musical phrase that has remained a memorable part of American history.
And in law* – “In subsequent cases also, we have recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.” (Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 (2000)).
Professor Barry offers these examples and many more. He also offers a formula of sorts for legal writers seeking to add Rule of Three rhythm to their memos and briefs: “short, short, kind of long” or “same, same, kind of different.” It’s as easy as one, two, three.
It's no surprise that Supreme Court law clerks searching for a job in private practice will be faced with some tough choices, but determining which firm is offering the highest signing bonuses is not one of them. Jones Day leads the way this year in offering a signing bonus of $400,000. That is nearly double the salaries of the Supreme Court Justices for whom they clerked. And that does not include salary.
It's a given that any firm would be more than happy to hire a Supreme Court clerk. They have already proven their mettle and intelligence, so there is little risk as to whether they can handle private practice. But the opportunity to use the Supreme Court as a pre-screening testing ground for the next newbie associate is a privilege only a few firms can afford.
Michael Scanlon, hiring partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, which recruited two Supreme Court clerks from last term, said “the market appears to have settled” at $400,000. He attributes the escalating bonus to the fact that “the competition is great” for the small number of talented attorneys—38 or so—the Supreme Court turns out every year.
It's something to think about that thirty years ago the signing bonuses were in the neighborhood of $10,000, and even in 2015, they were around $300,000. Any way we look at it, Supreme Court clerking has been a bountiful niche to exploit. Supreme Court clerks go on to the most prestigious jobs in private practice, government, and many return to the Supreme Court - as justices. A majority of the Court now contains former Supreme Court clerks (Roberts, Breyer, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh). While the promise of exclusive access to desirable jobs and an extremely large signing bonus are attractive to former clerks, some people don't think it's a good thing.
“When the numbers get so high—in terms of the bonus itself and the numbers of hires going to one firm—it unavoidably raises concerns about what is being purchased and the meaning of public service,” Harvard Law School professor Richard Lazarus said in 2015. Lazarus, reached this week, said he stands by those remarks, adding that “a vast majority” of the Jones Day hires are likely to leave the firm in a few years. “Jones Day is paying a lot of money for a photograph,” he said.
It's a point that might have been overlooked if these signing bonuses weren't so large - does the enormity of the sum start to create ethical problems for these lawyers while they are at the Court or for the perception of our justice system?
The yearly Appellate Hot List recognizes lawyers and law firms who achieved great victories at the Supreme Court or federal appeals courts. This year's list of 22 includes firms perpetually on the list like Jenner and Block, Jones Day, and Mayer Brown. But it's worth clicking over to see short vignettes on each firms' most notable cases for the year.
The money at stake can be astronomical, as in Kathleen Sullivan's victory of a vacation of $139.8 million dollars royalty damages award in Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor. That was only one of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan's achievements this year in the multi-million, and billion dollar range. Sullivan's advice for succeeding in her complex cases is to "simplify, simplify, simplify."
Geyser PC's Daniel Geyser convinced the Supreme Court to find in his client's favor regarding the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, also a multi-million dollar case. His client was facing investigatory costs over $5 million. The Court limited the scope of the costs under the act. Geyser credits his success to being creative in his firm's approach to the case. They explore every angle and they keep the same lawyers on the case from start to finish.
More and more Indian Tribe controversies are gaining public notice, and Pratik Shah of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, has a list of victories to show for them. In the Patchak v. Zinke property dispute, Shah developed a second angle to his argument that first focused on separation of powers. His strategy paid off when he won 4 votes from the Court on his primary argument, and 2 more members concurred in the judgment on his alternative legal theory argument. He too emphasizes thinking creatively, and to be confident about rethinking, revamping, and reframing arguments.
Two weeks ago the Seventh Circuit issued a benchslap to a lawyer who modified her brief after being asked to resubmit her brief with a redacted appendix. The facts of the case are not pretty. On March 30, the attorney filed her brief (after 5 time extensions, one of which she requested when the brief was a day late). Opposing counsel realized that the appendix to her brief contained material that the court had ordered redacted.
On April 6, the granted the attorney's motion to file a corrected appendix. The ordered directed her to "'file by April 11, 2018, a new electronic version of [the] brief that includes the fully-redacted appendix.'" She complied with that order, but also made "substantial changes in the body of the brief, altering propositions of both fact and law." Opposing counsel, once again, caught the discrepancies, and asked for more time to address these changes. The court granted that request, but also directed the attorney to "file another brief that would eliminate the substantive and wording changes." The Seventh Circuit cited its opinion in Khan v. Midwestern University, which addressed differences between electronic and paper versions of a brief. In Khan, the court noted that paper and electronic versions must be identical.
The attorney resubmitted the brief, claiming that it was identical to the March 30 version, but it wasn't. The attorney claimed that the changes were accidental and asked the court if she could "re-file the March 30 version with handwritten interlineations that would have made the printed brief different from the electronic version" and from the March 30 version. The court, rather fed up by this point, issued an order giving the attorney "14 days to show cause why she should not be subject to professional discipline, including an order to pay any additional costs that appellants have incurred as a result of [her] repeated alternations of a brief that should have changed."
In her response, the attorney claimed that she thought that the order allowing her to make redactions also allowed her to make substantive changes to the brief. The court "accept[ed] her assertion that she believed that she could do so," but noted that "errors made with an empty head are hard to excuse." She blamed "the second error on infelicitous naming of files on her computer." The court found this excuse harder to swallow, noting that she never compared the documents or reviewed date stamps. According to the court, "Making an error once is bad; making it twice in a row--and in the teeth of the warning in Khan . . . is unfathomable."
Despite the harsh language, the attorney got off easy--just a public reprimand.
I find this opinion particularly interesting given the uneasy alliance between electronic and print copies of briefs. Many judges are now working off of electronic copies of briefs, yet many circuit still require paper copies to be filed, sometimes a few days after the e-copy is due. It is imperative that attorneys file identical copies. As the Seventh Circuit noted, this requirement ensures that everyone is working for the same version of the document. I am sure that this attorney learned her lesson.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.