I am scrambling around today so don't have time to post much. But I've been thinking about my demeanor with opposing counsel. UCL has a nice little essay about the relationships attorneys develop with one another, even while representing people whose interests are not aligned, and sometimes are actively hostile to one another.
It's not all sweetness and light, as UCL kind of makes it sound. There are some aggressive folks out there. You see a variety of different styles and approaches, even within a small office like this one. One attorney here routinely advises opposing counsel at the beginning of a matter, "I don't ask for extensions, and I never agree to them. If you know these ground rules at the start, we'll get along fine." I'm still developing my own style, or, more accurately, observing it manifesting through continued encounters with other attorneys.
To some extent I take an "aw, shucks, what do I know here, I'm just a junior attorney trying to get this done," approach. It's not as hokey as I make it sound. I find it disarms people who might be inclined to dismiss me and sometimes enlists them as allies. Or as self-appointed mentors. If they react to me this way they seem to soften a bit, and to say a lot more about what they're doing, and why. Whether I accept their mentorship or proffered lessons or not, I think it can be helpful to my clients to have the other side telling us more, not less, about their analysis of the case. And although I bristle if I think people actually think I'm a dope, I don't mind being underestimated -- I think my clients can benefit from that, too. It also leaves me free to ask questions, get clarification, and pull the car-salesman "I've gotta run this by the partner I'm working with" move.
I'm wondering whether and when I may outgrow this style, or whether and when it might hurt me. Since I want to be a business and bankruptcy lawyer and try (so far unsuccessfully) to avoid doing litigation work, I think the transition is pretty natural in the business mode. I hear myself negotiating with force and authority on those terms and structures I understand well, and switching into, "aw, shucks, I'm a couple of steps behind you here, let me make sure I understand this," mode when I'm in a situation that's new, where I have no business instincts.
Maybe it's different over here, but I reasonably often find that the people opposing me are people I know quite well anyway: we were friends at law school or whatever.
Posted by: Liadnan | April 28, 2004 at 01:09 PM
Frankly, I don't know that your colleague's "no extension policy" is necessarily the best approach. My experience is that in most situations, where opposing counsel needs extra time to respond to a motion or make a filing, the court's going to allow it - unless it's a regular event. If an attorney has to go to the court for an extension because your colleague wouldn't agree, it's your colleague who's going to look like a jerk. I don't see how that serves the client's interest.
Posted by: Carolyn Elefant | April 28, 2004 at 06:01 PM
For the record, my colleague's style is definitely not mine, and I do not mean to endorse it here. I just mean to relay my experiences, having had the opportunity to observe it in action on many occasions.
Posted by: Scheherazade | April 28, 2004 at 06:25 PM
I always wonder why lawyers are ever rude or unpleasant -- is rudeness a tactic to get what they want and why do they think rudeness works? I really don't understand it; doesn't it just force the other side to dig in its heels more and commit more strongly to the oppposite postion?
My goal in any kind of negotiation is to be gracious but firm; it can be a tough balance especially when the other side is not so polite, but I think it's effective. I have evolved over nearly seven years from "aw shucks" to "gracious but firm" -- but I am not too proud to go the "aw shucks" route from time to time, or even quite a lot, if I am dealing with unfamiliar issues. And I am also not so gracious that I won't bite back if opposing counsel is overtly rude.
Posted by: cmc | April 28, 2004 at 06:37 PM
I'm not sure how the fact that you're a woman plays in. I kind of feel like women are more likely to go your "aw shucks" route than men, especially the men that are competitive enough to become lawyers. (So far in law school, it seems as though the men are here to be competitive, and the women are here because they genuinely like it.)
Posted by: monica | April 29, 2004 at 11:10 AM
I follow the same route - as a junior lawyer, it is easy to play a little dumb - but as far as extensions etc., I'm generous until I feel that it hasn't been reciprocated - at which point I immediately turn into a complete jerk.
Posted by: Tor | April 29, 2004 at 12:01 PM
I'm not in the legal biz so I can only comment as a general observer of people. I find people who feel they have to be the domineering know it all types to be off putting.
Rather, to me, if I had to pick a lawyer to help me out of a jam, I'd go for one with quiet confidence.
I was told when UCLA b-ball coach John Wooden was asked how his teams from the 60's would fare against today's athletes, he was reported to have said, with a smile and a twinkle in his eye, we would do alright.
Posted by: Rene | May 05, 2004 at 07:25 PM
oh boy... how this brings back wonderful memories. babies are glorious.
Posted by: louboutin heels | May 31, 2011 at 02:41 AM
I have read not one article on your blog. You're a big lad
Posted by: seo software tools | October 04, 2011 at 02:02 PM