It’s too early to be pompous

It’s Too Early To Be Pompous

Copyright (c) 2009 Lucille Uttermohlen

I was on the phone this morning. This fact in itself isn’t especially interesting. It was the hour of the phone call that interrupted my morning coffee, and it was more than annoying.

The call was from a judge in conference with opposing counsel. It seems that my opposition objected to my filing a brief in what he considered to be an untimely manner. I would have to agree with him. I was late, but as the judge pointed out, there was no statute of limitations, and I wasn’t alone in my tardiness. Other attorneys have filed things late, and unless someone’s rights are prejudiced, its no big deal.

I won’t try to justify my actions. I had the darn thing done in plenty of time, but my secretary was looking at the court order which said «within 30 days,» and she assumed it meant from the date the order was entered, rather than the date the hearing was held. Although my final argument was brilliant, I’m still puzzled as to why opposing counsel didn’t want the judge to read it. After all, final arguments are only one attorney’s take on the case and have no evidentiary value on their own.

My point in telling this story is more general. I will never understand why people take themselves so seriously. This particular man is more self-righteous than the Pope, and his approach to his cases seems to be that he is personally justified in taking his position. It isn’t a function of whether his case is meritorious, it is more that because he took the case, it must be.

This attitude is far too common in this profession. It seems that some of my colleagues forget what they are supposed to be doing and focus solely on the fact that they are the ones doing it. They trade explaining and pursuing their client’s interests for grandstanding and posturing. The consequence is that the other side digs in its heels and fights back. Negotiation then becomes a distant dream.

There are cases that can’t be settled. If the clients feel that diametrical opposed outcomes are necessary, the judge simply has to decide between them. Many times, the decisions are close calls at best. In fact, more than one judge has told me that if the parties don’t reach an agreement, there’s a good chance that the judge will make a ruling that neither of them like.

It is a simple proposition. If you want the other side to understand your point, you treat it with courtesy and respect. You don’t have to agree. You just have to resist the urge to tell them how stupid you think they and their ideas are. Actually, if you can stay calm and try to be objective, you will do better for your client than you will if you act like the other side is wrong just by virtue of the fact that they are the other side. You are always better off negotiating settlement if you can. Sometimes you can’t, and you have to take your chances with the judge. When you do that, you want to make sure the judge knows what you think the evidence showed, and why you think your interpretation is the right one. Finally, and this is most important, you don’t want to harass me before I’ve had my morning coffee.