- law dawg
- 82 Comments
- 2957 Views
A couple weeks ago when we asked for tips for new attorneys, some of you talked about being friendly with opposing counsel. How exactly do you go about doing that? What advice do you have for being civil to the people with whom you are doing battle? How do you deal with self-righteous counsel on the other side who thinks you are evil for representing your side? How do you older attorneys deal with the young whippersnappers who show no respect and didn’t earn what they’ve got? How do you younger attorneys deal with the dinosaurs who aren’t keeping up with the times? What’s your best tip for keeping it professional while being a zealous advocate for your client?
I give everybody the benefit of the doubt in the beginning. I grant reasonable extensions, I communicate my position honestly. If settlement is likely I let them know early so we can get the ball moving, if it’s unlikely I let them know early so they can advise their clients accordingly and prepare their case. If you yell at me when we’re on the phone, I will not take your calls again. If you misrepresent what I said to you in an affidavit to the court, you’ll only get e-mails thereafter. Give respect until people show you they don’t deserve it.
The better relationship I have with opposing counsel the better it is for my client. I do family law. But, the poorly educated often mistake my civility for not fighting hard enough, so I have learned to hide it a little in the hallways. Every action is taken with the knowledge that the cabal is watching and I must be careful of offending any member if I care about my clients. Yes, I’m serious.
This is exactly my approach and has been for 25 years.
I agree. I had an EDCR 2.34 with an attorney yesterday. First he asked if I was an attorney. Then the abuse started. From now on, we will communicate only through email.
Few things are more empowering than dictating the forum for communications. The email that says “Because of the manner and language used in our phone of today’s date, all future communications will be in writing.” is truly a blast, especially when OC wants to talk on the phone, because he/she can lie or act a fool and then deny it later.
Meh…I’d tread carefully. Had an attorney once claim that I had to serve them with all communications through odyssey right off the bat because she thought she was going to girl boss the case. Problem is that the email they had in odyssey for service was their own email. There was no excuse for me to have to write and upload every single piece of correspondence. Just created delays and needless acrimony. I continued to email her and not e-serve correspondence. Her obstinance caused delays which ultimately cost her client.
That said – there are some attorneys whose phone calls I will not take. Email only.
I would have responded with a very simple “Yeah. I am not going to do that. I will email you at your email address.”
When she blew her gasket, I would respond simply with a “Please cite to the rule or law that requires that I honor your demand.”
Good fun dealing with nonsense attorneys pulling nonsense shenanigans.
Hutchison & Steffen is a great place to work and they have a lot of different areas of practice.
Related question – if you were a newbie entering the market today, what are the top firms you would want to work at? Commercial litigation, plaintiffs, family law, criminal, etc.? No negativity here, so don’t respond with “I would never want to work at [x] firm” blah blah blah…
Great question. Personally, in life, my thinking is to always work off of your strengths and interests. If I have prior knowledge and am interested/motivated in an area, I usually can thrive in that area. So, with that in mind, work off your strengths in the legal field as well, and try, easier said than done of course, but try to create and dominate a niche aspect of the market – that is my two cents for anyone thinking short and long term about work prospects and marketing/self-promoting themselves.
I realize I didn’t name a specific firm, but find the area of interest and the related firms will follow for where to go and thrive.
The best way to practice in my opinion is working for yourself. The freedom and flexibility that comes with this is amazing. So I would say what ever firm helps you grow quickly as a practitioner and allows you to stand on your own two feet. For example, being wooed by a fancy big firm feels good, but you may find yourself doing the leg work for a partner, never actually meeting any clients, and being effectively forbidden from building a book of business of your own. I started at a firm that put me in court arguing something as soon as I passed the bar. It was terrifying, but very helpful. So, whatever firm helps you actually grow I would say. Sorry its probably not the specific answer you were looking for.
Depends on what your goal is. For commercial lit, in my opinion Pisanelli Bice and Campbell & Williams are the best — you’ll work your ass off but learn a ton and be a better attorney for it. If you want to do transactional, you’ll have to go to a bigger firm like BHFS, Snell, GT… For plaintiff work, my understanding is newbies typically work with a firm and then branch off on their own, so may be less important so long as the first firm shows you the ropes and doesn’t just have you fielding intake calls.
As the first reply said, find your interest and then pick the best in that area. I could have worked for best family law firm in the country and still been miserable.
Has anybody moved into the ATMS niche of recruiting out-of-state law school grads to Vegas. There was a time when like 30% of the attorneys in the valley had gotten their start at ATMS.
Can we talk about EJDC judges – maybe they’ll see comments and make some changes. Or is Law Dawg going to shut that down (or report us to the bar?). I think this bares on tips for new attorneys – for example, if you’re appearing in front of Judge Kishner – you better know the local rules and follow them to a tee. Not a criticism of her. That’s an example, another example would be – get a though skin if you’re appearing in front of some other judges because they are flat rude and i have no idea why they are still on the bench as they seem to hate their jobs and all the attorneys who appear in front of them. Can I name names???
Younger attorneys should absolutely learn the local rules and follow them. Just because some judges don’t enforce them, a lot of them do.
Especially outside of the EJDC – federal court, other states, etc.
I’m fine with a judge being a stickler for the rules but Judge Kishner spends more time lecturing lawyers about the local rules than she does dealing with substantive issues. Eventually it gets to the point where it feels more desperate than authoritative, like a kindergarten teacher who’s lost control of her class. She’s one of the better judges on the law but one of the most unpleasant courtroom experiences out there.
Judge Delaney is a class act. Always prepared , tough when necessary and uses a common sense approach and allows attorneys to speak. I wish more judges were like her.
Simple. Don’t be a douche. Don’t get personal. It’s not your case, it’s your client’s case. Be the professional that your client is paying you to be. Recognize that nobody (including you) is perfect.
With that being said, if you have multiple cases with a single lawyer and they consistently require special handling, it is OK to rain down the fires of hell on them.
This is the most reasonable comment in this thread.
I had an opposing counsel scream at me on the phone about the merits of the case a few weeks ago. I posted about it. it was so bizarre it caught me flat footed. I like listening to opposing counsel explain their theory, but I don’t like it being so personal. You’re a mercenary, I’m a mercenary. It’s not personal. If anything, it ought to make us comrades.
Early in my practice, I learned from senior lawyers to “always let the other guy set the tone.” For a collegial opponent, match their collegiality but never let down your guard. For a douchebag opponent, respond conservatively and double down with crisp legal work. When dealing with a douchebag, drive the litigation and make the douchebag chase you.
I have two rules, always grant extensions unless it would actually harm your client. You will need one sometime too, so don’t be a dick about it. If giving the other side an extra day to file their motion means they can actually attend their kid’s birthday party, who cares. If trial starts tomorrow and my client has already paid a fortune to fly in experts, going to have to be a no.
The second rule I have is to never try to use the Court’s incompetance against the other side.
10:20 here, I should clarify what I mean in my second point. For example, we all know that if you win a motion, you can put nonsense in the order. Findings that weren’t made. Findings and conclusions that are highly beneficial when the Court didn’t ask for them. Crazy statements of fact in motions or characterizations of the facts or the case, etc. 95% of the time the Court will sign the order of the prevailing party. Many times the Court will accept wild premises that aren’t true because they haven’t really read the briefings. Some practitioners know this and use it to their advantage. Every order has to be the subject of a Motion to Reconsider. Pages of oppositions have to be wasted just pointing out BS. Don’t be that guy. You may get away with it in a case, but it will come back to bite you.
I know of an attorney that did not get a position he was applying for because of his reputation for doing this kind of nonsense. Cost him dearly in the long run.
For this reason, I use the minutes and only the minutes to draft my orders. Eliminates objections to form and content. When I send it over for OC approval, I attach the minutes to the email. They see that I am only putting what the judge actually said and what the clerk actually put in the minutes in the order.
This is especially helpful in family law cases.
Doesn’t work when the proposed order is supposed to be submitted within 10 days, but the minutes don’t show up for a month.
Touche’ I usually make a record that the order to be drafted will be based upon the minutes when they are available.
This doesn’t work when the Judge makes a ruling that requires actual Findings/Conclusions, but the minutes don’t say anything about those. Then you have to assume that they adopted the arguments contained in the winning side’s briefs.
Unless, as one commenter has reported, there are motions and countermotions that are heard at the same time, and the minutes just say “granted” without explaining who won, or why they won.
Oh hell no. The minutes are notoriously inaccurate. Get the JAVS video and use a web service that will create an unofficial transcript for you. I’ve been in multiple dueling order situations and prevailed by following this practice. Don’t be lazy and blindly follow the minutes.
I have done that as well. Of course, it goes without saying that using the minutes only works if they are accurate.
I agree with 10:20 on extensions. There were two distinct times when extensions were a real issue in some of my cases. First one opposing counsel had a really bad family situation. I absolutely hated them and still do, but I gave an open ended extension. I’ve never once regretted it. This job can be soul sucking. Don’t lose your humanity and be that guy who takes opposing counsel into court to beg for an extension because their life is falling apart. The judge is going to grant it and you’ll just be the asshole. More importantly, it chips away at your soul. Second one I had health issues. Opposing counsel actually emailed me and said I had to be prepared to bring a doctor’s note to court. Judge took one look at me and granted the extension, no doctor’s note even mentioned. I’ll never ever forgive opposing counsel for doing that to me. They can burn in hell.
off topic, but good lord
https://blog.cvn.com/nevada-jury-awards-550m-over-fatal-car-crash-watch-full-trial-via-cvn?utm_campaign=Marketing%20Outreach&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_ZA50Cmex8yW_GPx14Sz6DwpLLH-yrb_QzGLvWd0_25xXEEzAlfrOLYuFHrS3TZfDAx9i_XFW8tvSxf5j3dwymwg9jWAQoKwUSkMDEkUNAs4_ZrgM&_hsmi=329242379&utm_content=329242379&utm_source=hs_email
Wow. These insurance companies rarely do the right thing and never learn when they get popped.
Not surprised by the defense attorneys on that case. Some firms really like to screw things up. I guess they stay in business by accepting extremely low rates from their carriers.
Bad take.
100% this screw up was on the insurance carrier for failing to respond to a demand for the policy limits early on. Their counsel in this case (and in most bad faith cases) was handed a dog of a case but the carriers want to litigate.
Good work, but what’s the chance of collecting? The Defendant likely had a minimum liability policy. If in jail, he has no assets.
So is the insurance company possibly on the hook for this when the mother was the insured? Or is this a huge judgment against an inmate that is pointless? I don’t practice in this area and don’t know much about it. Was this just a duty to defend or a duty to indemnify?
Duty to defend the tortfeasor trumps everything else. This clearly involves a bad faith cause of action which runs to the insured, which will be (or has been) assigned to the Plaintiff as compensation for the tortfeasors actions.
Haha love the comments from the peanut gallery. Limits were offered early on and accepted and then un-accepted. That does not bad faith make. Good luck collecting, sheep.
I am confused. I thought the jury found bad faith and awarded punitive damages against USAA for mishandling the claim. Whatever YOU may think as to whether their actions rise to the level of bad faith or not, the jury has spoken and found bad faith. No need for collections, I am sure USAA will settle it. Insurers need to pay attention to how they treat their insureds. Numerous recent examples of huge hits against insurance companies for bad faith.
Yes, you are confused. This is a case against the defendant. No one has decided that USAA committed bad faith yet.
Vehicle owner was the insured. USAA offered policy limits to all claimants right away. Permissive driver was drunk. Denton set aside the default on him and Ranalli represented him throughout litigation. And before anyone sued even Bighorn accepted the pro rata and even agreed to a hold harmless in writing. Soooo yeah. Not bad faith. But we shall see what happens….
This was just a trial on the principle of the thing. USAA is protected. This family will get the satisfaction of being able to say that they got justice for their loved one by getting a piece of paper for a massive judgment that will never be collected. We talked yesterday about the German family getting to see the court process vindicate their loved one even if it will not bring them back. This was that same exercise.
Yes. You are very confused. USAA was not a party in that case and there is no findings against USAA. I highly doubt USAA is going to settle this out. That Plaintiff’s firm is notorious for trying to manufacture bad faith and it’s about time they were taken to the wood shed. I’m looking forward to it.
I wish someone would take me to the woodshed by giving me a half-billion dollar verdict.
Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it half a billion dollars, I will. I got spare time. – Tommy Boy, Esq. probably
They won’t collect but you’ll see the verdict on their billboards lol.
I don’t know anything about this specific case/claim, but I have definitely seen plaintiff attorneys try to manufacture “bad faith”… or straight up pretend that they don’t need any insurance misconduct in order to get paid in excess of policy limits. Even when there isn’t a good argument that there was any bad faith by the insurer, they can then get an 8-figure verdict and scare the insurer into paying a lot more than it (legally) needs to.
And this plaintiff firm is the most aggressive in attempting to manufacture bad faith…
It will be interesting to see what ends up happening with any appeal/bad faith claims that are filed.
cope
Remittitur anyone?
Kimball is a killer, has had some huge wins this year. He’s taking scalps left and right.
Insurance companies better get ready. Bad faith is getting hot, and juries sure do love giving the middle finger to them.
Insurance company offered limits on a global basis and Bighorn suggested the initial cut. Everyone agreed and then issues with the SOL. So really not as cut and dry as it seems. Check out the motion work on the motion to enforce. But good for them on the verdict. Good luck collecting I suppose.
To the new judge who got the JCCR in the second week of September and just set the Rule 16 Conference for the last week of December on the same day that you sent me correspondence asking me to contribute to your campaign, you cannot be serious.
It’s campaign season. And also those emails are automated. You’re not special. Speaking of automated, 16s are set by function of the calendar and when the JCCR is filed.
Lots of tips in this comment.
Let’s hope yours isn’t the only 16 set the last week of dec. .
There is no excuse to have a Rule 16 Conference set 100 days after the JCCR is filed. So if this particular department’s calendar (and I am presuming its 14 or 27) is so far backlogged that it cannot get the mandatory conference set, then rubber stamp the deadlines in the JCCR and get the trial setting order out. 100 days is inexcusable.
Just serve your initial disclosures and do your discovery. You don’t need to wait for the 16.1 if that’s what you’re worried about.
Yesterday, Draskovich filed a motion to withdraw from the Telles case. From Draskovich’s Declaration: “That your Declarant has not been retained for the appeal process;
That the Defendant has several issues he wishes to address in his appeal;”
FWIW, the hearing on sentencing enhancement is today (10/16) at 8:30 AM.
I thought there was some new NSC decision that attorneys have to stay on for appeal
I can’t see that making sense. Which doesn’t mean it isn’t true since the NSC has had some doozies lately. But making a criminal defense practitioner stay on for an appeal (which may even be frivolous) feels like a step too far. Appellate work is a completely different type of advocacy and the business model for a lot of these criminal defense solo practitioners may not accommodate such work nor should they be compelled to file an appeal that they believe to be brought in bad faith.
Since grounds for a criminal appeal often are ineffective assistance of counsel, unusual to have a defense lawyer stay on for an appeal. Even more unusual where the defendant has privately retained and now will have no earning power for 28 years.
I don’t believe you can raise IAC claims on direct appeal. Only in a separate post-conviction writ of habeas corpus.
That’s right.
Telles sentenced to 28 years before parole. (10/16) Draskovich out as counsel. Public defender in.
It was very straight forward, matter of fact. German’s brother recalled again, his family’s love of Jeff and then expressed fear they live with that, in 28 years, if Telles is released, he may come after their children. That is an anxiety I am very sorry that they live with, even if the chances of Telles’ release are slim to none.
Yes, he’ll be old in 28 years; but he’ll still genuinely believe that the rules don’t apply to him.
It’s tragic that our criminal justice system could find a way to not lock him up and throw away the key. That would at least have provided some minimal sense that this is over. I am saddened that the German family must endure this.
Rest In Peace, Jeff.
The QoL in our Nevada state prisons is so awful that the odds that Telles survives 28 years are small. The system did effectively lock him up and throw away the key.
I do not share your wish for that. My wish would be a system that our criminal justice system could find a way to hitch Telles to the wagon and make him productively work for restitution and righting his wrongs for the benefit of society. Retribution would not have to be lost in the process. This case is not over insofar as you will be faced with 28 years of habeas petitions and Telles rotting away for no one’s benefit. I mourn for the German family. I mourn for the Telles family sans Rob.
Honestly, because of this character flaw, he will struggle mightily in prison and he will either break himself of it or he will spend his time in PC. He will flout the rules and the systems, pushing paper on staff and inmates and he will be punished at every turn.
At sentencing Telles still denies it and had audacity to further torment the family by speaking to them. POS.
IT was painful to watch that part.
CourtTV show it?
Re: the LDS Temple suit: Does referring to a structure as a “Disneyland” skyscraper no fewer than 5 times in 11 pages, and invoking the name of a large entity capable of squashing you like a bug, seem like good advocacy?
I thought that as well. The temple opponents take great offense if you question whether they are motivated by religious animus, but continue to use disparaging rhetoric to describe the most sacred physical space in the LDS faith.
Maybe they could increase attendance with a Celestial Fastpass Lane
10:05 AM here. Haha. Card carrying member, but I would support that AND if they would reopen the cafeteria and offer churros, turkey legs and monte cristo sandwiches!
Seems like an attorney having fun when he knows he is doing this to rankle people and not to actually prevail.
Perhaps, but he is betraying his clients if so. His clients are very serious about stopping construction of the temple. They will fail, of course, but that doesn’t give counsel the latitude to troll the LDS community to the detriment of the clients credibility.
He is trying to assert that the monstrosity is ridiculous. The joke is always in the eye of the beholder when not in the eye of the beholden.
Fine and dandy when there isn’t a First Amendment protection in play.
Lighten up Francis. Your team is going to win. No First Amendment issues are in play by noting that the structure looks like Cinderella’s castle other than freedom of speech issues. Your organization that is big enough to handle a little ribbing but laugh all the way to the bank or City Council chambers.