Opinion ID: 852005
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Behavior of Laney’s Counsel

Text: Dr. Wisner and the clinic contend the behavior of plaintiff’s counsel was so unprofessional and so permeated the entire trial that it tainted the proceedings and therefore the cumulative effect was prejudicial enough to warrant a mistrial. We review denial of a Trial Rule 60 motion for abuse of discretion. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc. v. Markley, 856 N.E.2d 65, 72 (Ind. 2006). When the motion is based on Trial Rule 60(B)(3), the appellant must show that (1) misconduct occurred; (2) the misconduct prevented the appellant from fully and fairly presenting the case at trial; and (3) the appellant has a meritorious defense. Id. at 73–74. An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s decision was against the logic and effect of the facts 4 and circumstances before the court. McCullough v. Archbold Ladder Co., 605 N.E.2d 175, 180 (Ind. 1993). Dr. Wisner and the clinic argue the trial court’s finding Laney’s counsel in contempt of court on day three of the trial and instructing the jury to disregard certain statements made by Laney’s counsel were insufficient remedies that failed to undo the cumulative effect and prejudice caused by such conduct. Defendants cite to several exchanges in the record that were particularly harmful to such a degree they claim that the harm could not be undone. The first are instances where Laney’s attorney asked specific questions in front of the jury in violation of the trial court’s order not to broach a certain subject. While questioning plaintiff’s daughter, plaintiff’s counsel asked if Laney was still seeing a particular physician. This was met with an objection, which was sustained by the trial court. Immediately following the sustained objection, plaintiff’s counsel asked another objectionable question and again the trial court sustained the objection and prohibited the inquiry. Following an overnight break, counsel resumed questioning plaintiff’s daughter along the very same lines that the trial court forbid the day before. Defendant’s counsel objected, and a side bar conference was held where the trial court again found the desired testimony to be irrelevant. Undeterred by the trial court judge, immediately following the side bar conference, plaintiff’s counsel once again went right back to the same line of questioning, drawing yet another objection from defendant’s counsel and yet another side bar conference. At the second side bar conference, the trial court made it clear that this prohibited area of inquiry would not be ventured into again by plaintiff’s counsel. Nonetheless, plaintiff’s counsel would pursue the prohibited testimony once again, this time attempting to solicit the prohibited testimony through the plaintiff herself. Ultimately, the court instructed the jury to disregard the previous questions and not to consider at all the questions that had been asked by plaintiff’s counsel on this subject. On the following day of trial, the trial judge held yet another side bar conference and warned plaintiff’s counsel that if he brought up that particular issue again during the next witnesses cross-examination a fine of $500 would be imposed for contempt of court. 5 This example is one of many displays of inappropriate behavior of counsel. There were excessive objections by both counsel, over eighty by the defendant’s counsel and over thirty by plaintiff’s counsel. While objections are clearly permitted if made in good faith and on sound substantive grounds, repeated objections despite adverse rulings already made by the trial court are not appropriate. However, far more problematic for the trial judge in this case was the unnecessary sparring and outright contemptuous conduct of each attorney directed toward the other. The record reveals at least five instances where the trial court judge had to admonish the attorneys about their behavior. Furthermore, by any conservative measure there were at least ten instances of questionable behavior by each attorney during the trial. Examples are bountiful throughout the record, but a few examples are highlighted below. Plaintiff’s counsel stated during the trial, “There was no discussion of the testimony here in court. He’s wasting our time, Judge. There’s no violation. . . . I’ve about had it. Cut the scenes in front of the jury. . . . Yeah. Judge, this conduct’s got to stop by Mr. Murphy. This has got to stop.” “We don’t want to hear about your unsolicited advice. I don’t care for your unsolicited advice.” “What are you talking about Murph. . . . You’re slipping, Murph.” “No, no. I never said that at all. That’s an outright lie.” “Well, I must [be] wrong. I must be wrong for the fifth time, but I think I’m going to show Mr. Murphy has been wrong every time he’s objected and I’m going to show later on. . . . He keeps telling me I’m wrong, Judge. The record’s going to bear me out. How about this? Loser pays a thousand dollars it wasn’t faxed? . . . There’s something unprofessional going on here, I’ll agree. It’s going to come back.” [Tr. at 607, 98, 179, 192, 957, respectively.] Defendants’ counsel stated during the trial, “Your Honor, I think it’s really unfortunate that we start off with a misrepresentation to the Court.” “He’s already violated it twice.” 6 “Are we going to put up with this?” “I would prefer you not talk to me. You talk to the Judge. I’ll do the same.” “Keep your hands off me. I don’t get with this, Judge.” [Tr. At 14, 47, 737, 272, 286, respectively.] We hope this is not the way attorneys conduct themselves at trial. As specifically found by the trial court judge, “the trial was replete with improper behavior, in this judge’s opinion, by both attorneys.” The trial court ultimately concluded there was no substantial prejudice resulting from counsel’s actions. The trial judge is in the best position to gauge the behavior of the attorneys and whether or not it impacts the jury and in what context. Strack & Van Til, Inc. v. Carter, 803 N.E.2d 666, 677 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). We cannot conclude this decision was against the logic and facts before the court. Here, defendants failed to show the alleged misconduct prevented them from fully and fairly presenting their case at trial. The contentious nature of the relationship between plaintiff’s and defendants’ counsel was evident at the beginning of trial. It apparently began during depositions with defendants’ counsel remarking that no competent lawyer would conduct a deposition in the manner plaintiff’s counsel was. There were accusations of misrepresentations, lying, and not following the rules. The five-day jury trial was filled with unnecessary comments back and forth between counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel did not care for defendants’ counsel’s unsolicited advice. The attorneys would frequently interrupt each other. The trial judge even noted one time, “I don’t want you both to behave like this and I don’t want to embarrass you either because I’m not going to put up with it.” On another occasion, the trial judge remarked “I’m just concerned about what the jury is thinking right now. I think you guys are representing the legal profession and I don’t think you’re helping each other.” Near the end of the trial, the trial judge even directed plaintiff’s counsel to apologize to the jury for personal comments about defendants’ counsel. Even during the subsequent hearing 7 on the motion to correct error, some four months later, the lawyers could not behave civilly toward each other.3 A jury trial is not a free-for-all. It is a civil forum in which advocates represent their clients before a panel of citizens, in front of a judicial officer who is responsible for enforcing the rules of procedure and rules of evidence and assuring the proper behavior of everyone in the courtroom. It is similar to an athletic event with two opposing teams competing and a referee observing to ensure all of the rules are followed. In this trial, both plaintiff’s counsel and defendants’ counsel committed fouls. Did plaintiff’s counsel commit more fouls? Yes. However, defendants’ counsel also committed fouls. It is important that attorneys not lose control of their passion for their client or cause and become too emotionally involved and make the cause personal. In such circumstances they risk harm to their client, their reputation, and our profession. All attorneys in Indiana take an oath and each and every statement in the oath is sacred. One particular statement is, “I will abstain from offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged.” Ind. Admission and Discipline Rule 22. Our law schools are trying to train our law students in certain core values of the legal profession, and some of the most important for the future of our profession are collegiality, professionalism and civility. At every trial, indeed at every moment of our practice, we have the opportunity to better our profession. Here, the trial judge presided over the entire trial and had the benefit of observing the overall conduct of both attorneys, not only in the presence of the jury, but outside their presence. The trial judge redirected both counsel on numerous occasions, admonished both counsel on occasions, and even used her contempt powers in an attempt to manage the conduct of counsel and ensure a fair trial. Again, the trial court judge is in the best position to determine when enough is enough and whether or not the behavior of counsel would warrant a new trial. 3 The acrimony between plaintiff’s and defendants’ counsel did not end at the trial. During the June 2010 hearing on the motion to correct error, the poor behavior began anew. Mr. Murphy accused Mr. Schaffer of bragging about his numerous sanctions having no effect on him, describing his conduct as unprofessional and making gestures during the trial, while Mr. Schaffer called Mr. Murphy an “outright liar” on two occasions. 8 While we find that the judge did not abuse her discretion in denying the motion to correct error, we nonetheless express our displeasure with the conduct of counsel, particularly that of plaintiff’s counsel. Professionalism and civility must be the foundation of the practice of law. Upon this foundation we lay competency, honesty, dedication to the rule of law, passion, and humility. Every lawyer and every judge is charged with the duty to maintain the respect due to the courts and each other. Our clients and the public expect it. Our profession demands it.