6
Defending Lawyers' Mistakes Author(s): Jeffrey M. Smith Source: Litigation, Vol. 15, No. 2, MISTAKES (Winter 1989), pp. 18-20, 55-56 Published by: American Bar Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29759302 . Accessed: 15/06/2014 06:10 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . American Bar Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Litigation. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 185.44.77.34 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:10:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MISTAKES || Defending Lawyers' Mistakes

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: MISTAKES || Defending Lawyers' Mistakes

Defending Lawyers' MistakesAuthor(s): Jeffrey M. SmithSource: Litigation, Vol. 15, No. 2, MISTAKES (Winter 1989), pp. 18-20, 55-56Published by: American Bar AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29759302 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 06:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Bar Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Litigation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.34 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:10:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 2: MISTAKES || Defending Lawyers' Mistakes

Defending Lawyers' Mistakes

by Jeffrey M. Smith Anyone who has handled a highly charged case?a bitter di? vorce or tense murder trial?knows about emotional peaks and valleys. A legal malpractice case has all of that, but with a twist. Unlike the jilted spouse or the accused murderer, a

lawyer-client cannot be calmed with the usual pacifiers. A

knowing look and a three-piece suit will not help. Neither will ritual legal incantations. Unlike most, this client knows all the moves. This client is a lawyer, sued for being a

lawyer. This client has been charged by his client with mal?

practice.

Defending lawyers in malpractice lawsuits involves un? usual challenges. A lawyer-client knows the process, the issues, and the strategies. But, like most clients, he often cannot view the case with detached rationality. His ego is threatened, and his livelihood may be on the line. In such circumstances, it is not enough to know the law on legal

malpractice. When you face a client full of anxiety but trained to evalu?

ate your every step, the first thing to do?even more than with other clients?is to earn his trust. But there is a big im?

pediment to this. The lawyer's lawyer?you?is not neces?

sarily a close professional friend. The accused lawyer may not have even heard of his attorney before.

Insurance Puzzles

The reason is insurance. Malpractice defense counsel is often appointed by the defendant's malpractice carrier. You

might think that having insurance would lower a lawyer's anxiety. But insurance companies have a complex set of

goals and duties. Though they must act in good faith, they can deny coverage or issue strongly worded reservation of

rights letters. More often, however, lawyers worry (with less

justification now than in the past) that a defense lawyer retained by their insurance carrier will favor the carrier's interests over the client's. A defense lawyer must find ways to assure his client that

concerns about a sellout to the insurance company are un? founded. One way to do this is to send the client all corre?

spondence addressed to the insurance company. This must be a strict policy; tell the client and the carrier about it orally

Mr. Smith practices law in the Atlanta firm of Arnall Golden & Gregory.

and in writing. It is even a good idea to write down all

telephone discussions on significant matters between de? fense counsel and the carrier. Copies of those memoranda should be sent to the lawyer-client. Despite such efforts, insurance can still create a conflict of

interest between a lawyer-defendant and his attorney . Insur? ance coverage questions are delicate and can erode essential

lawyer-client trust. The problem is this: A malpractice policy does not always cover everything a lawyer may be accused of. The conduct in question is usually covered only if the

lawyer was acting as a lawyer. But suppose defense counsel finds that his client's actions involved promoting a real estate deal for a client company. What course should the defense lawyer take? Should he call the conduct the giving of

legal advice, thereby maximizing coverage but establishing an element of the plaintiff's claim? Or should he say his client was just a real estate promoter? That would help defeat the malpractice claim, but it might eliminate coverage and, possibly, the insurance-financed defense lawyer. In all of this, what does the client think about his lawyer's loyalties? Defense counsel should not, of course, assist the insurance

carrier on coverage matters. Regardless of who hired them, their first loyalty is to their client. In fact, it is unlikely that

any legal malpractice carrier today would permit retained defense counsel to become entangled in coverage problems. However, counsel initially may not recognize coverage is? sues as they emerge. This can require careful analysis.

Status reports to the carrier in cases involving fraud allega? tions can seriously threaten attorney-client trust. Consider the lawyer-defendant's reaction if he hears or reads his law?

yer saying that the facts suggest fraud. To say the least, the

lawyer-client relationship will be less frank from that point forward. One way to cushion the impact?a little?is to

phrase things in terms of what the jury might believe. This can avoid the need to say whether fraud has in fact occurred.

As much as they may be concerned about insurance cover?

age, lawyers sued for malpractice worry more about whether the lawsuit will affect their reputation, their practice, or their

insurability. These concerns must be addressed quickly. Remember first that, even if baseless, a malpractice com?

plaint is usually an embarrassment. Try to keep it as private as possible. Ask the client whether he wants all correspon

Litigation Winter 1989 Volume 15 Number 2

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.34 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:10:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 3: MISTAKES || Defending Lawyers' Mistakes

dence marked "Personal and Confidential" and whether it should be sent to his office or his home. Be aware that parts of the case may be so sensitive that the client will prefer that

only certain lawyers or staff within your law firm know the details. While such limits on communications will often not be necessary, the mere fact that you suggest them will reas? sure your client about your sensitivity to his concerns. Re? member, a lawyer's reputation may be on the line.

Though confidentiality is important, you should not act in

ways that overly confirm your embattled client's fears. Aside from charges of stolen trust funds, forged documents, or similar serious misbehavior, few legal malpractice com?

plaints by themselves will dent an otherwise well-deserved

reputation for competence and honesty. Tell your client that.

Malpractice defendants particularly fear loss of business. If the lawyer is sued by a client, he will, of course, usually lose that client's business. To that extent, his practice will decline. But, though the plaintiff will usually not provide future business, that is not universally so. When dealing with

large corporations, it is sometimes possible to settle mal?

practice claims without ending a lawyer-client relationship. This can happen because corporations may sometimes assert a claim, but not file a complaint for tactical business rea? sons?a disputed bill on a sour case, for example. The deep emotion of an individual client's suit may be absent.

Apart from loss of the plaintiffs business, there is little evidence that one malpractice complaint will seriously harm a practice. Of course, if the plaintiff has friends who were

considering retaining the challenged lawyer, or someone else in his law firm, that business may well be lost too. It is

unlikely, however, that other clients will leave merely be? cause another client filed a malpractice complaint. Most will not even know about the complaint. For those who do, legal malpractice complaints are now common enough that they create little excitement or notoriety.

Besides worrying about keeping business, a malpractice defendant will worry about keeping insurance. Insurability is a greater concern than it used to be. Defense counsel should avoid an analysis of coverage but should tell the client if it

appears that insurance might be canceled or that a new carrier would not write a policy because of the pending complaint. In delivering such a message, emphasize that you are not the insurance carrier's agent and that what you say is

just your own view.

Insurability is not simply a matter of financial peace of mind, however. It also can affect case strategy. In making case decisions, all malpractice defendants want to know whether a settlement, or an adverse verdict, is more likely to

compromise future insurability. As a defense lawyer, you must offer advice on that point. But remember the fine line

you walk between carrier and client.

Increasingly, plaintiffs counsel add allegations that take

advantage of insurance conflicts and provide other tactical

advantages. Prominent among these are claims of ethical violations. The idea is that expert testimony that the defen? dant breached ethical rules will support the allegations of

negligence, recklessness, and even fraud. Not content with

just allegations in the complaint, some plaintiffs file com?

panion complaints with the local bar association. This ethics ploy can cause you and your client real prob?

lems. If a complaint is filed with the local bar association, someone must defend it. This raises a coverage question.

Many policies cover actions only if damages are sought.

Does this mean no coverage, and no insurance-financed

lawyer, for the ethics process? Having a separate lawyer defend the ethics complaint could be awkward: Different

lawyers may take inconsistent positions. You do not want to look too anxious for more business, but there is a big advan?

tage in having the same attorney before the court and the ethics panel.

Once representation is resolved, a good way to respond to a disciplinary action is to seek a stay. Many grievance panels will grant such a request. They want to avoid having the

disciplinary process used as a weapon in the civil litigation; that will surely be one of the plaintiffs aims. A stay will stop the plaintiff from using the disciplinary proceeding to get free discovery; this is possible because bar counsel will take discovery in the ethics dispute and will not charge the

plaintiff. Free discovery is not the only risk posed by an ethics

complaint. If not stayed, ethics disputes usually are resolved faster than a civil lawsuit. A favorable outcome may seem

helpful to your client, but the benefit is limited. The plaintiff in die civil action is only a complainant?and not a party?to the ethics proceeding; if the ethics charge fails, he therefore

probably will not be bound. On the other hand, an adverse ethics ruling can well be fatal to the defendant in a civil action. The plaintiff may be able to introduce it as evidence; collateral estoppel is possible because the client was able to defend himself. In many jurisdictions, the proof standard for ethics matters is more stringent than that in civil lawsuits. This simply increases the force in court of an unfavorable ethics ruling, and it underlines the importance of securing a

stay. There is a final problem with ethics proceedings: the use of

confidences and secrets. The former ABA Code of Profes? sional Responsibility permits lawyers to use their former client's confidences and secrets?to reveal matters covered

by attorney-client privilege?in self-defense against accusa? tions of wrongful conduct. Lawyers can do this, however, only to the extent it is "necessary." If a lawyer-defendant is too aggressive in revealing confidences, a later forum, per? haps in another malpractice proceeding, may conclude he went beyond what was "necessary." (The ABA Model Rules

Litigation Winter 1989 Volume 15 Number 2

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.34 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:10:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 4: MISTAKES || Defending Lawyers' Mistakes

have similar restrictions.) This can lead to more trouble and more damages. Be careful.

Once the client trusts you, and does not see the insurance

company as a problem, you must determine the client's

goals. Suppose the complaint alleges RIGO violations along with malpractice. If these flashy claims have received press attention, the client may decide that things cannot get worse and (assuming there are good defenses) that it is better to

litigate than to settle. The opposite may be true if the com?

plaint consists of the usual charges of negligence in dis?

pensing legal advice. There may be little publicity unless there is a trial. Of course, publicity is not the engine that drives a settlement analysis, but such nonmerits topics must be considered.

Early in a case, you rarely will know enough to be sure whether trial or settlement is likely. Regardless of how much is known, however, it is important to involve your client in

your planning early. Tell him you want his thoughts and

suggestions. This is important. Tension can develop when a

lawyer represents a lawyer. Defense counsel may become

overly sensitive about second-guessing by the client. Some? times the second-guessing may actually become excessive.

On the other hand, the client may be overly reluctant to com?

ment, because he fears he will be considered intrusive. To make a team approach work, the players must focus on

the facts and legal issues. A malpractice complaint will almost always produce strong emotions; those feelings must be secondary. Talk with the client?the lawyer under at? tack?about the problems that can be caused by dwelling and brooding on the outrage of the lawsuit. For some lawyer defendants, this reaction can be obsessive. Besides hamper? ing defense efforts, it can cause physical and emotional

problems. Before leaving the subject of emotions, it is worth describ?

ing some emotional and practical threats for defense counsel in malpractice cases. Recall that defense lawyers are usually picked by the insurance company. Even if you use the tech?

niques described here, your client may not be loyal to you. This can lead to more than a lack of trust. The lawyer

defendant may conclude that his attorney is part of the prob? lem. Even if he actually was negligent, he may try?emo? tionally at least?to shift blame: The client didn't listen; my associate didn't read the mail; my friend Harry said he'd cover for me; and so on. With some defendants, this road of rationalization may have you at the end: It wasn't really malpractice; it was my defense lawyer's fault for losing. The result of that, every now and then, can be a malpractice complaint against you.

The message is not that every malpractice client will even?

tually look to you to indemnify his loss. Instead, it is that you must be aware of the feelings and rationalizations at work.

They are present, in muted form, in many cases. Be cautious. Practice defensive law. Never make significant decisions without carefully consulting your client and, unless there is a

conflict, the insurance carrier. Send letters to the client and the carrier confirming important matters.

Even if emotions are under control, and you and your client see eye to eye, there still will be special difficulties in

defending a legal malpractice case. One of the most impor? tant is the question of attorney-client privilege. Handled

poorly, the privilege can be a trap. Part of the problem is that the client is a lawyer himself. He

often works with other lawyers and is used to discussing his

problems with them. Suppose a law firm has five partners and five associates. Further assume that only one partner is named in the malpractice complaint. The firm is neither named nor served. In fact, the defendant partner did all of the work leading to the malpractice claim. If that named defen? dant talks about the case or reveals his conversations with

you to others in his own law firm, the attorney-client privi? lege may be jeopardized. The conversations with his col?

leagues may not be protected. This is particularly true if the

challenged conduct is not something that the law firm usu?

ally does. The solution is simple, but not foolproof. Tell your client

in the plainest terms not to talk about the case. He should not talk even to those who are friends and close business col?

leagues. If he really must discuss the status of the suit, have him clear the conversations with you first.

Another sometimes unrecognized threat to confidentiality are conversations with claims examiners for the malpractice insurance carrier. The same is true of coverage counsel re? tained by those carriers. If such conversations involve facts and issues related to the case's defense, in many (but not all) states the joint defense privilege will preserve the informa? tion from outside scrutiny. That, however, is never a sure

thing. See Uelman, "The Joint Defense Privilege?Know the Risks," Litigation, Summer 1988.

If coverage issues are the focus of the conversation, how? ever, probably no privilege protects it. Suppose, for example, that an insurance carrier asks a lawyer to act simultaneously as supervisory and coverage counsel. If defense counsel?or the lawyer-defendant?is drawn into a discussion to deter?

mine coverage, it is unlikely that the conversation is privi? leged. Unfortunately, the distinction between defense-re? lated and coverage discussions is not always evident. Be careful what you say.

Talking About the Case A final confidentiality problem that comes up more than it

should is the lawyer-client having a frank discussion with a close friend?usually another lawyer?regarding the case.

Perhaps the lawyer is feeling down and wants sympathy. Perhaps he wants free advice. Whatever the motivation, the talk is not protected. Simply put, the client?like any client?should not discuss the case outside the confines of the privilege. Of course, you can go overboard on this point; there is no reason to make the client feel the case is a matter of "eyes only" national security. But he must know that

gabbing about case strategy with a close friend could lead to

very damaging?and discoverable?disclosures. The final challenge for a malpractice defense lawyer is the

client's testimony. The real difficulty is not the content of that testimony; that varies with each case and is developed from an analysis of the facts and law. Instead, the problem is

delivery and attitude. In theory, lawyers should be excellent witnesses. They

have many assets that should help them at deposition and trial. Their law school education and professional experi? ence?and usually their overall intellect?should serve them well. If nothing else, someone who has prepared others for

testimony should be able to testify well himself. Not so. Lawyers are often among the world's worst wit?

nesses. Worse yet, their audience will be harder on them than on ordinary witnesses. Judges and juries expect more from

(please turn to page 55)

Litigation Winter 1989 Volume 15 Number 2

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.34 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:10:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 5: MISTAKES || Defending Lawyers' Mistakes

way to relieve such anxiety is to seek

simplification through an early deci? sion.

A second reason for quick conclu? sions is that jurors are often asked to

make very important decisions. These involve large sums of money; the eco? nomic health of corporations and indi?

viduals; important, sometimes grave, social consequences; and even matters of life and death. A courtroom is

strange and at times hostile for jurors. This all leads to even more anxiety. Jurors do not want to agonize at length or to fall into endless soul-searching. One way to keep this from happening, and to minimize anxiety, is to reach a decision early and to stick with it.

There is another aspect of jury think?

ing that is important here. Curiously, Zeisel seems to hint at it by using the term "anchor point" in his article. He offers no basis for his use of the term, but it is much like a term trademarked

by Litigation Sciences: Psychological Anchors.

Psychological Anchors are the two or three key points of evidence, or

ideas, that jurors use to organize?to make sense of?a case. Rarely are they specific legal points. They may not even be points attorneys would be in? clined to stress in the evidence.

Psychological Anchors can be dis? covered in pretrial research, by, for

example, conducting simulated trials. Once they are known, they should be

prominently used in the opening state? ment. This puts attorneys on the same

wavelength as jurors. By knowing what

jurors are searching for, attorneys can stress points that legal analysis alone

might not have suggested. Professor Zeisel's treatment of this is

incomplete. As noted, he seems to say that a good opening is merely one that contains compelling evidence. But this overlooks an important aspect of Psy? chological Anchors. Jurors do not al?

ways agree with attorneys on what con? stitutes "important" evidence. They of? ten decide a case on the basis of infor?

mation that attorneys may not even think is relevant.

Despite the documented importance of opening statements, there are no

guarantees. Cases can be won and lost before, during, and after the opening statement. The fact that jurors are

swayed in a given way during the open? ing statement does not seal the verdict.

We have never generalized?as Profes? sor Zeisel suggests?about "80 percent

of the trials" in which we have been involved, only about 80 percent of the

jurors. Jurors in that 80 percent may hold

their position early in the trial with

great intensity. But the view of some

may be weakly held. Such positions may be more or less provisional, sub?

ject to reinforcement or erosion. Even if two or three jurors later change posi? tion, that can be critical. Although three-quarters or more of their col?

leagues may retain their verdict predis? position and end up where they began just after opening statements, the ones

who do change can alter the outcome of the trial. We have never said that every? thing in the trial after the opening state?

ment is superfluous. What is true, however, is that open?

ing statements are important far out of

proportion to the time they consume in the trial. They demand more time and care than lawyers have given them in the past. If there is any point at which

jurors will be attentive and will be

looking for a basis on which to make a

decision, it is when they listen to the

opening statements. That is the best

opportunity attorneys will have to make their case.

In his article, Professor Zeisel sug? gests that those who believe in the im?

portance of openings are engaged in the

"implied diminution of the jury's intel?

ligence and decency." That is just plain wrong. Nothing we have discovered about opening statements denigrates the intelligence of jurors. The fact that

jurors?in fact, most of us?reach con? clusions differently than those in the academic world with which Professor Zeisel is familiar does not mean their

thinking is inferior or their conclusions less accurate. Nor do our findings deni?

grate the process of trial by jury, or

suggest a better alternative. Some years ago, one of us partici?

pated in one of the most interesting jury

trial experiments ever conducted. This was the use of a shadow jury in a $300 million antitrust suit brought against IBM by California Computer Products.

A later account of this experience said:

Despite the many vicissitudes of the shadow jurors, one important reassuring aspect of their work needs to be kept in mind. An obvious strength of this group, as with any jury, was the ability to cut through to the gut issues? matters of basic right and wrong. Jurors, when all the grit is

scraped away, do come to a sense of equity and fairness. And that after all is what any case is about.

We stand by this. Trials are not won

by forensic tricks or behavioral science

sleight of hand. In our legal system, cases are not determined by experts? legal, technical, scientific, or moral. Inductive reasoning is not mandatory. Instead, the interests of society are

thought to be best served by having cases decided by panels of ordinary men and women who think in com monsense, everyday ways.

This is not the time or place to debate this proposition or the relative merits of the jury system and its alternatives. But one thing is clear: Our findings about the opening statement cannot justifi? ably be used for or against juries. They do not begin to suggest that jurors are

stupid. They suggest, rather, that most

jurors are doing the difficult job given them in the best way they know how.

We believe they do it well. The Anglo American jury system is still the finest vehicle ever devised to reconcile hu? man conflict. 10

Defending

Lawyers

(continued from page 20)

lawyers than from witnesses with no

legal training. But, as various polls show, the general public has a low

opinion of attorneys as a group. This is a poisonous combination. When the trier is skeptical of lawyers and simul?

taneously expects more of them, you, as defense counsel, have an uphill course.

Unfortunately, some of a lawyer's

Litigation Winter 1989 Volume 15 Number 2

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.34 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:10:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 6: MISTAKES || Defending Lawyers' Mistakes

strong points create more problems. Opposing counsel will not take a law?

yer witness for granted. He knows the lawyer is intelligent, well trained, and probably aware of what is com?

ing. Faced with a witness who will not be intimidated or surprised, plain? tiff's counsel will prepare harder than usual. That is bad news for you and

your client.

The Curse of Overeonfidence Even though they are walking into a

lion's den of high expectation and low

regard, lawyer-witnesses tend to be overconfident. They answer too

quickly. They violate many of the rules of testimony they lay down for their own clients. Their worst sin is assum?

ing they know the question, even when the opposing counsel has not yet com?

pleted it. This occurs even when de? fense counsel?you?is asking a ques? tion on direct at trial. The only way to combat this?as you do with all clients?is to review many times the rules of testimony. With a lawyer, you

must do it more often and with greater vigor. The premium on realistic trial and deposition practice sessions is very high.

Some lawyers feel compelled to an? swer immediately to prove they are

competent. Silence?even a brief

pause between question and answer? creates anxiety. They have spent a life? time impressing clients with their abil?

ity to communicate. Now they want to do the same to the jury. All you can do is to use the usual techniques with extra force. Tell the client to repeat silently all but the most innocuous questions before responding. He obviously will not be able to repeat the question until

opposing counsel has finished asking it. Silent repetition will cause a pause, at least one or two seconds, between the question and answer. Another impediment to effective tes?

timony is that lawyers are accustomed to controlling most conversations.

Being forceful and commanding is part of the job. In fact, lawyers tend not to listen carefully enough even to their own clients. It is therefore not surpris? ing that lawyers are often uncomfort? able in the witness chair, where the

interrogating attorney has more control than they do. Remember this in your preparation sessions.

Finally, lawyers tend to answer all

questions?even if there is no factual basis for their answers. Here again, the

habits of work serve lawyers poorly as witnesses. Lawyers are paid to be

knowledgeable. They rarely express doubts. Most attorneys are too willing to give opinions which, on the stand,

may open them up to questions usually reserved for experts. Tell your client he is not?today anyway?being paid to have all the answers. Tell him that he should answer only if, after careful evaluation, he is sure he knows the an? swer.

In all aspects of representing a legal malpractice defendant, remember the

complex forces at play. Your client

may be emotional. For him, the world has been turned upside down. He is used to suing people, not being sued. He is used to giving advice, not taking it. But he is nonetheless anxious and worried. Your challenge is to gain your client's trust, remember the problems he pre? sents, work with him to form and follow a coherent strategy, be aware of the risks, and then go out and try to win. 10

Mortimer

(continued from page 25) Hanley: I think many of us in our

country believe it is barbaric. Mortimer: Oh, I think it is. It pol?

lutes the whole country in a way, if you take part in this ritual killing. Trials can

go wrong. Trials have gone wrong. The result is irreversible?it's dreadful.

Hanley: You handled a large number of freedom of speech cases. You have written that, in those cases, you were at a point where the two great concerns of

your life?writing and the law?met, and almost failed to recognize each other. That is intriguing, but I am not sure quite what you meant. Mortimer: I remember doing the

Last Exit to Brooklyn appeal at the Court of Appeal, before three very in?

telligent Lords of Appeal. I was trying to describe the writer's position. I said that it was impossible to be a writer who was told that there were some ar? eas of life which you are not allowed to write about.

The judges were certainly interested in that, but it came to them as an en?

tirely new idea, even though it is a total cliche to anybody who works in litera

ture. The generally held view of the court seemed to be that if Shakespeare wrote Lady Macbeth, it meant that

Shakespeare was in favor of murdering the houseguests. They found it impos? sible to separate the author from the

subject with which he was dealing. Hanley: I mentioned before that, in

freedom of speech cases, you seem to have lost the dispassionateness you have said is an essential quality in ef? fective advocacy. I am very interested in that. I have found, in a few cases where I have felt very strongly, that I

probably did my best work. I am no

longer sure that detachment is an essen? tial of good advocacy. Mortimer: I don't think it necessar?

ily is. Still, you must preserve a small

part of your mind which is critical

enough of your own case to be able to see all the points against it. If you oblit? erate the difficulties because you are so passionate, then you are not any good at all. You have got to be able to

put all the arguments against you to

yourself very strongly so that you can answer them.

Having said that, I don't think that it is a bad thing to be able to tap a vein of real sincerity. Empathy is important. I'm reminded of Marshall Hall's re?

mark about the little prostitute in the dock accused of murder. At the end of his final speech he spontaneously pointed to her and said, "There she sits. God never gave her a chance; will

you?" I think he probably meant it and felt it strongly.

Hanley: It was a pure delight to be with you today. Thank you for letting me invade your home and for giving me such a generous amount of your time.

Mortimer: I've enjoyed our little conversation. 10

Expert

Problems (continued from page 38) you lack expert advice, you may agree to a settlement that is not as attractive as you think. You might save more in settlement payments than you pay a

promptly retained specialist. ?

Bringing the Work In-House is

Cheaper. A second myth is that money can be saved by doing expert analysis

Litigation Winter 1989 Volume 15 Number 2

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.34 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:10:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions