- law.dawg
- 23 Comments
- 281 Views
 |
| Image from the Associated Press |
I was reading this story in the LVRJ about an insurance company allegedly leaving a five-figure settlement payment at the insured’s attorney’s office in buckets of change, when it reminded me of some of my least favorite run-ins with opposing counsel over the years.
I’m sure you all know this already, but thanks to the Board of Governors and the State Bar’s efforts, our next batch of lawyers will now have to promise to “conduct [themselves] in a civil and professional manner, whether dealing with clients, opposing parties and counsel, judicial officers or the general public,” as they are sworn in to the bar.
And I’m sure you also know that Nevada’s Rules of Professional Conduct has long provided that “[w]hen a lawyer knows or reasonably should know the identity of a lawyer representing an opposing party, he or she should not take advantage of the lawyer by causing any default or dismissal to be entered without first inquiring about the opposing lawyer’s intention to proceed.”
However, I’m also sure most of you would agree that this new oath and the foregoing Rule of Professional Conduct still allows for quite a bit of heinous shenanigans to occur between and among our distinguished colleagues.
Anyone want to share some of their own or overheard favorite war stories and/or advice on handling a particularly difficult adversary?
Has anyone ever had any luck with NRS 7.085?   
In my 7 years as an attorney there have been many times when I have gone up against opposing attorneys who are just pure a-holes. I try my best to be cordial with every attorney I face up against because in our line of business, we deal with a lot of crappy people and I don't want to add to it. It doesn't get you anywhere by being a jerk to opposing counsel and in the long run, it may cost you opportunities to resolve a case and save your client some litigation fees.
Sorry for the rant. I just get tired of attorneys who think that every part of our profession has to be adversarial.
I agree completely. I have been doing this 8 years and there can be some serious a-hole attorneys and some good attorneys to work with on the other side. You can be courteous with opposing counsel and still be an effective advocate for your client. There are limits of course (i.e. that doesn't mean I will give you 20 extensions or be a door mat) but I try to treat all opposing counsel cordially as well. I think it absolutely can cost opportunities to settle a case if you are a jerk to opposing counsel. Even more reason to be cordial is so when you are stuck on the bad end of a case (and that happens to us all) the last thing you want is opposing counsel who has just been waiting to stick it back to you.
The biggest assholes are the ones that refuse to grant extensions in reasonable circumstances. But coming in a close second are assholes that claim you're being unprofessional when you refuse to grant the 10th extension, or when a request would actually damage your client's case, not just delay it for a little while.
This one time…opposing counsel didn't return my call—wait, that's like every fricking time. What's the matter with you people? Can't you return a simple phone call?
Sorry, that was me. I've been really busy with three different trials all going at the same time so I can't return phone calls for at least two weeks.
Umm, I had an opposing counsel who would grant an extension with a death in the immediate family. That is a real douche!
Not grant an extension!
I like to take opposing counsel to lunch early in the case. It helps develop a rapport that can be helpful as things heat up later. I am a newer attorney and the worst experience I had was opposing counsel that, six months after Admissions were served, decided to send them to me with a back dated certificate of service at 3:00 AM the date of the Arbitration. Admissions were deemed admitted. They lost.
It's all about the culture of the firm. Some civil firms teach through modeling both cordial/civil behavior and bad behavior. The DAs office had a culture for a long time that was completely obstructionist and uncivil. Some of the older DAs can't seem to help themselves. e.g. You want to see if they will oppose an extension of time in the NSCt. They won't talk to you about it. "File a motion." aaaargh
Not really a civility issue, more of an age/gender issue that annoys me to no end — as a young female attorney, this repeatedly happens. I go to argue MY motion, and the male attorney (usually an older male attorney, but a younger male has done it to me also) starts to speak first and tell the judge what they think my position on the issue is. So then I have to interrupt counsel (and be one of those lawyers who interrupt, ugh) to inform them that it is MY motion, I get to argue first, but more importantly, I am capable of presenting my position. In one case, the female judge even had to tell opposing counsel to just present his own position . It was pretty funny to see his face after that comment.
For the record, I'm an older male attorney and I stopped reading your post as soon as you identified yourself as a young female attorney. (I'm sure you have a point to make, I just figure I know better.)
Not a female/male thing. It's a power thing. The one who speaks first often gets to frame the debate. Thus, the attorney who can successfully co-opt your speaking time has a significant advantage, in addition to possibly pre-empting you speaking at all, which is to his advantage as well. Plus, there's always the concepts of primacy/recency to consider.
Everyday in family court sometimes the attorneys are less civil then the clients
As in the rest of life, the biggest jerks are usually those with something ugly to hide–a small YouKnowWhat, a shiity home life, an abusive childhood, etc… Unfortunately, in the practice of law, it has become acceptable to wear your internal ugliness on your sleeves–to the point of being implicitly encouraged, like it makes you more effective. It's a mistake, however, to think that one can be a jerk in just one aspect of life. The attorney who is a real A-hole at work (as opposed to just an aggressive advocate) is definitely also an A-hole in his/her personal life, which is probably marred by addiction, multiple failed relationships, weight problems, erectile disfunction, etc…
In honor of Godwin's law and Markley's law I dub this argument "Jerkley's" law. If a lawyer is a jerk and/or unnecessarily "aggressive" they must then have something to hide like a small pecker (see Markley's law), shitty home life, abusive childhood, be a Nazi (Godwin's law), etc. Clearly it would NEVER be that they are simply mirroring your shitty attitude or lack of civility, especially in family court.
You might call Stubbs an idiot if you were a kind, civil person: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qVysSGvlQo
For those who haven't clicked through–you're missing out. It's Bowtie doing standup comedy!
Stubbs is a friend of mine. He doesn't fit the mold, which is why I enjoy his friendship. It's also why some people don't like him. How many Mormon motor cycle club enthusiast civil libertarian stand-up comedians do you know? Me? Just one, my friend Stubbs. Haters gonna hate.
That is the worst stand up routine I have ever seen. From what I can tell, Stubbs is a mediocre attorney, mediocre stand up comedian, and mediocre bike gang member. Seriously, he should just focus on one thing, like shaving that nasty multi-colored beard.
More from extreme geekism, with Bowtie entertaining the desperately bored: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNE4FX6a9yg
Bowtie is obviously a good enough stand up comedian to be booked on the Las Vegas Strip. Impressive. Some people are gonna hate him no matter what he does.
I'll tell you what's bullshit- when you ask opposing counsel for an extension and they claim they have to "run it by the client." Really, that's code for, "I am an unprofessional douche and I don't have the decency or courage to just tell you 'no' and reveal my douchiness." Obviously, clients don't get to make those decisions. I can't decide what's worse, that these kinds of OC's won't grant the extension or that they don't have the balls to just tell you "no" straight up.
9:29 – I have worked on a case or two with a control-freak client who would insist on being involved in every decision like this. If the pettiest of things wasn't run by them, they would accuse their own attorney of conspiring with the opposing party or something similar. It doesn't happen often, but it can happen.