- Quickdraw McLaw
- 31 Comments
- 360 Views
- In a surprise move, the Las Vegas City Council blocked renewal of the city manager’s contract. [Las Vegas Sun]
- Meanwhile in North Las Vegas, City Manager Ryann Juden got a raise. [RJ]
- Local attorneys hope to establish world class Holocaust Museum. [News3LV]
- The Henderson Animal Shelter is offering half-price adoptions this Saturday. [Fox5Vegas]
Oh, oh. I am getting coerced by opposing counsel. WAS, all is being documented.
I'm curious as a new attorney how everyone deals with setbacks or losses? I've been practicing just over a year and find that if I lose a motion that I take it really personally but other lawyers seem to take it as a fact of life or not a big deal. Is that a skill you develop as you keep practicing? Do you just get used to it? How do you balance taking your cases seriously but not driving yourself crazy if you make a mistake or lose?
This is a great question. I, too, like you, used to get really personally hurt that the judge could not see my (and my client's) point of view. I think it just takes some time to not let losing bother you so much (remember, most lawyers are A type personalities, so we like to win). However, a couple things, besides the passage of time, helped me:
First, I try to put myself in the judge's shoes and recognize that in most instances there are good points on both sides. The judge is (usually) not ruling against YOU, the judge is just ruling against the argument. You are just the messenger.
Second, you have to realize that our judges are politicians. They have no particular skill set that would make them a good judge. Being a successful politician does not mean one will be a good judge. So, having an elected judge reject your argument should not hurt too bad, because the judges often have no experience in the areas of law before them.
Third, I try to compliment the other side when they do good. It takes the animosity out of the situation and turns it positive.
Fourth, unless you are defending criminals, most of what lawyers do is really just not that important in the long run, so why get mad? You winning or losing a motion today will most likely have no meaning in your life in the future.
Be a prosecutor if you like winning all the time.
Even in federal court, where the Judges are not politicians, losing stings. It is hard to sell something you don't believe in, so we wind up believe our positions. That said, the mantra I try to keep is that there is always another case. We are part of a system, and we need to keep that in mind in order to maintain some degree of objectivity. Basically, they teach us in legal ethics that each matter we take is the most important. If that is the case, they are all the least important as well. Try not to wrap too much of your self worth into the result, realizing that your part in the process is the product. If you do good work, you should feel good about that, regardless of the result.
I think that 10:09,and some of the others,have answered 9:51's inquiry pretty well.
But I have an observation that is even simpler. This dynamic takes care of itself merely with the passage of time, even if you make no concerted effort to change your outlook and how you perceive matters.
It is simply a self-correcting problem. When someone is starting out on a career, virtually any career, they put so much emphasis on the results of each individual project, and become their own harshest critic, and they wrongfully assume that others are taking the time and effort to reach negative conclusions about their ability.
But with each passing week, and each passing project, this emotional investment, and harsh self-assessments, gradually fall by the way side.
Most attorneys are like 9:51 the first couple years of practice. But after several years, very few attorneys are like that. They do their best, and then move on to a new project, without a lot of unhelpful reflection and over-analysis of how they did on the previous project, what went wrong, etc.
Also, as 10:09 points out, if the facts and law are clearly on someone's side, but they still lose the motion, it is probably no real short coming on the part of the attorney. Instead, the facts and/or the law were not on the attorney's side to the extent the attorney believed they were, or the judge simply blows the call, etc.
If I got paid, I won.
Good question, which I think is often lost among more generic advice about handling stress. Unlike most other professions, "winning" or "losing" are normal, everyday parts of being a lawyer. So learning to deal with it is important. (Including winning, but that's easier: just don't be an ass. Learn to be gracious both in victory and defeat, because you will often trade places.)
Anyway, losing sucks, no doubt about it. But the only time it makes any sense to take it personally is if you did in fact make a mistake that caused it. If you can do something to fix the mistake, do it, and do it promptly.
Don't procrastinate, because that will only make it harder. I once had to withdraw a motion – boy did that suck. But I did the hard thing that had to be done, and I slept better at night, if nothing else because it was over. And I think that got me more respect from the judge and opposing counsel than trying to cover it up, or continuing down that path.
If the mistake can't be fixed, there's nothing else you can do but forgive yourself and learn from it. You can't go back and change the past (don't even think about doing any unethical or sketchy shit to try to cover it up). Forgive yourself. We all make mistakes, even the best, brightest, and most anal-retentive among us. You will too. It happens.
Second, figure out (it may be obvious – or not) why the mistake happened. Google the Five Whys. It may be just lack of experience. Growing pains. Totally natural. (I know that doesn't help feeling like shit after a loss, but it's true.) As 1:19 mentioned above, new in your career, it just feels more raw.
Third, make a plan / system / checklist / whatever to prevent the mistake from happening again.
That's the best anyone can do when the loss is due to a mistake.
Also, don't use this an excuse, but as mentioned above, there are many reasons why you might lose a motion (or case) that are entirely outside of your control. It took me a long time to realize that there's actually a lot less within my control in the practice of law than I initially thought. There's politics, personal relationships, outcome-driven decisions regardless of merit, clients who lie, witnesses who don't show up without any warning, and a million other things.
Thus one of the most frustrating aspects of this profession is that you can do an absolutely kick-ass job, and still lose to some sloppy, lazy sob who can't lawyer his way out of a paper bag.
Unfortunately, this is another thing that just takes some time and experience to learn to recognize. I'm a fairly technical person and it's easy for me to get caught up in the minutiae of the law or facts of a case. I've had to really work on stepping back, looking at the bigger picture, the politics and the pragmatism of what I'm asking the court to rule. Sometimes you will then realize that whatever position you're arguing is basically unwinnable, even if you are 100% right on the law.
At the end of the day, if you produced a high quality product that you are proud to sign your name to, you have done your job well. That is all that is within your control, and all you are responsible for. Whatever else happens is just the slings and arrows of an outrageous profession.
As a new lawyer, the judges don't know you yet, but if you keep producing high quality work, they will come to respect and trust you, and you may soon find that some of the "intangibles" start breaking your way.
Yesterday, I helped a friend prep for a hearing where we are co-counsel. At the end of our prep we both handicapped what we thought the most likely outcome would be. We both agreed it would be mostly a win, with a partial loss on a particular issue. And we were right, it played out exactly as we thought. The more you practice, the more you will be able to essentially handicap your hearings. This should help you manage your expectations as well as those of your client. It should also help you avoid getting into positions where you get your ass kicked.
I need opinions on a decision I made.
A few firms combined forces to have an event honoring a certain judge. Since I don't want it to be too easy to identify the judge,and since I wish to discourage errant speculation, I won't specify the gender of the judge, or whether the judge recently retired, or announced an upcoming retirement, or is years away from retiring, or whatever.
At any rate I was asked to be one of the people to make brief remarks honoring the judge. I made it clear I do not wish to be involved as I find the judge to be rather arrogant, lazy, and of mediocre legal ability at best.
So, which best describes my decision:
1. I am a reasonably principled person, who stuck to these principles, or;
2. I was sanctimonious, self-righteous, rigid, impractical unyielding, and a bunch of other negative observations that could describe my decision.
It's not too late to change my mind. Should I stick to my guns and sit this one out, or should I be practical, participate and make a few brief, innocuous and positive remarks about the judge(even though I will be telling white lies since I would believe none of what I am saying)?
I am reminded that the erosion of character is usually not caused by an isolated momentous, bad event. Instead, it is usually caused by it gradually being chipped away at–with each compromise of our principles and beliefs.
I say get off your high horse. I don't buy that your opinion of a judge is part of your core "principles and beliefs" or that saying a few words is an affront on your principles. You don't have to go up there are be all brown nose/gunnerish, just get up there and be nice. It's part of your business development.
You're 1. Just avoid the event. just about all our judges are "arrogant, lazy, and of mediocre legal ability at best." Why hang around them and intentionally place yourself in position to be reminded of that?
The only people who give real money to judges and must suck up to them are the plaintiff PI lawyers. That's because their interests and those of their clients are so closely intertwined. If I were a plaintiff PI lawyer I'd give the judges money and suck up too.
1:38 here. I went ahead and took the advice of 1:51,and just now confirmed that I will speak after all. As 1:51 points out, I was taking myself a bit too seriously, magnifying the significance of all this, and not being practical from a professional standpoint.
So, I'll just make a few general, positive remarks, and turn things over to the next speaker.
If more people shunned shitty judges, maybe they'd get the hint. Instead, we're all complicit in this dog-and-pony show in the name of "business development." Core principles or otherwise, if you don't believe in the judge, don't join in the effort to prop said judge up as an asset to this community.
All judges are shitty except for a few. I have no idea why people re-elect the incumbents. Vote them all out.
When the judge is ruling in my favor, the judge is great; when the judge is not ruling in my favor, the judge is not great.
That is not entirely true. Walsh ruled in my favor 90% of the time. While I looked like a hero, she was not a great judge. Miley is the same way. Gonzalez is a great judge and my win/loss record in front of her is abysmal.
Gonzalez is not a great judge.
8:10, are you me? That's my story as well.
Anyway, back to the OP, I would suggest soliciting nice comments and stories from your colleagues, and you can pick the best ones and read them. That way there's nothing disingenuous coming from you, but you still get the job done. Ta-da.
You can't fake it. If you try to make generous comments, but you don't believe it or your heart isn't into it, that will show through and be obvious to everyone. As a result, saying something will be worse than saying nothing.
You don't have to make generous comments. State facts. This Judge was in private practice for _____ years. In ________, Governor _______ appointed ___________________ to serve on the bench. Judge ______________ has served on the bench since then and has handled civil/criminal cases for many years.
Cannot get much more brief than that and serves to say nothing more than objective facts.
Ron Swanson:
“Marlene, is a woman. She has worked in the government for three decades. Thirty years, properly applied, that’s how long a good varnish should last. So Marlene, it is true that you have won this award.”
1:38–a most interesting dilemma, but I, for one, would like to know who the judge is, before I could really offer an opinion if honoring this judge, who you don't like, is an unprincipled move, or more of a pragmatic one.
I am confused by the story about the Holocaust Museum. At one point, it says that the museum will be privately funded, and at another point, it says "on Monday, several supporters, including some survivors, lobbied lawmakers in Carson City." If the museum is really going to be privately funded, why is there a need to lobby lawmakers? Can't the museum's founders simply open the museum, charge for tickets (or collect donations), and get underway?
Lobbying lawmakers sounds a lot like the museum will not be privately funded.
If you look at the NRS, it specifies that all money of the Board of Museums is "private money" somehow. So the museum is "privately funded" according to law, even though it will be funded by the State. Which is sketchy as hell, but I mean, substantially less sketchy than the Raiders Stadium Authority or the LVCVA or what have you.
https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-381.html
Local attorney John Wawerna died.
Is it just me, or are the stupid Captcha / I'm not a robot things getting ridiculous? Not just on this site, everywhere. It took me like 6 tries to download an order today. I wish the court would get rid of that thing. It's public record. Who gives a damn if some bots scrape it?
"ARGHGH!!! I DID CLICK ALL THE BUSES!"
I'm oddly relieved to see this post. I thought it was just me. Sometimes I'm pretty sure it is just f*cking with me.
Wait, where are you downloading an order that is stopped by a Captcha? Justice Court (behind a Captcha) doesn't have images. EDCR, that does have images, doesn't have a Captcha. At least, not if you enroll in Attorney Corner and access the cases from there.
Supreme Court's Orders and filings are all behind captcha.
And it's beyond annoying. At the very least there should be a way for authenticated users (i.e. verified humans, particularly attorneys) to log in and bypass the scourge that is CAPTCHA.