Abraham Lincoln's Advice to Lawyers

"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. As a peacemaker the lawyer has superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough."

-Abraham Lincoln

Counsel Table or Podium?

Hercules and the Umpire poses this question to trial lawyers.

Personally, I like the counsel table if I'm questioning my own witness (direct examination), as I want the finder of fact looking at the witness, not me.

On cross examination, I move around a little more, as I want to draw the focus to my leading questions as opposed to the answers from the witness. I also like to stand between the witness and their counsel during my cross examination. This usually happens after I give a document to a witness. I approach, and then don't go all the way back to my table.

So I guess my answer to "table or podium" is the lawyerly...it depends.

Funny Litigation Correspondence

Happy Friday.

For all the law-geeks out there, here's something that's probably only humorous if you're a lawyer.

I thought it was pretty good.

What is a Photocopier?

Dear aspiring lawyers: If you are planning on engaging in civil litigation, please watch this video. This is the kind of stuff you have to deal with.

I've taken plenty of frustrating depositions, but this has to be the most frustrating thing I've ever seen. Having said that, I was dying laughing watching this, so I thought I would share.

If you're a a civil litigator, I know you'll enjoy this. If you know one, pass it along.

Advice for Confrontations

Advice for political arguments. This would apply to litigation attorneys, as well.

ABA Rates 14 of the 185 Obama Judicial Nominees as "Not Qualified"

Volokh has an interesting discussion of the various issues this raises. First, I would probably guess that at least a few of the "not qualified" nominees are requests from Democratic Senators who have certain "pet" nominees.

More interesting than the ABA deal is the debate in the comments about what actually makes a person qualified to be a Federal District Court Judge. Would you prefer a district court judge with trial court litigation experience, or would you rather have a credentialed, tenured law professor who knows more of the substantive theory of the law?

I believe that litigation skills are transferable from one subject matter area to another. A district court judge needs to be able to understand how to run a contested case from the beginning to the end. That covers everything from discovery dispute, summary judgment motions, pre-trial motions, conducting the actual trial, handling post-trial motions, and a whole host of other things.

If you simply plug a “high intellect” transactional lawyer or law professor into the judgeship, you’re going to get a great deal of “on the job” training on the procedural side, and you’re still going to have to deal with them not knowing every area of substantive law. It just doesn’t make sense.

No one can know enough substantive areas of law to make up for neither knowing the basics of litigation skills nor having participated in a trial. If I had to pick a judge, I would take any lawyer who was tried 10 cases to a jury verdict over a tenured law professor any day of the week