It really grinds my gears when attorneys start litigating for the sake of litigating without context or purpose. Thatâ€™s right; I bet if you are a litigator, you know exactly what I am referring to.Â I am litigator, and I am absolutely convinced that we would all be better lawyers and happier individuals if we just learned how to do our job with dignity and professionalism, while avoiding absurd tactics and unnecessary drama.
Maybe I am alone on this one (and part of me really wishes that I am), but I just donâ€™t understand why some lawyers think it is beneficial to have one gear and one gear only during the litigation process â€“ Â to object and obstruct no matter what. Is it really necessary, for example, to resist any and all discovery requests by dreaming up objections that have no merit? Â In the end, is impeding the flow of information during discovery really in the clientâ€™s best interest, and frankly, is it consistent with our ethical obligations as professionals?Â It is my humble impression that this kind of obstructive behavior happens more than one might expect. So, we end up writing unnecessary motions and nasty letters and emails, we go to depositions to argue some more with the opposing attorney instead of focusing on the witness, and we create so much â€śbad bloodâ€ť that the case becomes one about lawyers and not their clients. Is this consistent with our professional obligations? I certainly think not.
Isn’t it in the clientâ€™s best interest to share as much information as possible about the merits of the case so that the opposing party can make informed decisions about settling the case early instead of dragging the parties through litigation for years? Why would a plaintiffâ€™s lawyer not want a defendant to know the nature of his claims, the extent of his damages, and the identity and subject matter of his expertsâ€™ testimony? Â Sharing this type of information is exactly the reason why a Plaintiff is in litigation in the first place.
Similarly, doesn’t it help a defense lawyer to be a straight shooter early on in the discovery process so that the plaintiff will not go on to note 100 depositions and use every discovery tool just to make sure that defense counsel isn’t hiding something? If the defense to a case is weak, isnâ€™t better for all parties to be on the same page (yes, even when a corporate defendant is not in the mood to hear bad news) so that a case that must be settled can be settled early without making defendant incur unnecessary defense costs? Pardon my cynicism, but since I am on my soapbox, let me say this as well: the interest in having billing time should never be a substitute for the clientâ€™s best interest. Â One byproduct of being evasive in discovery is that the defendant client (especially a corporate client) might end up being misinformed about the merits of the case – not a good position to be in when the lawyer finally comes to his/her senses and recommends settlement, but the client is not on the same page.
We have got to stop taking positions that have no good faith basis.Â If there is no evidence of contributory negligence, donâ€™t claim contributory negligence.Â If experts are retained to testify at trial before the expert designation deadline, donâ€™t object to their disclosure during written discovery simply because the expert designation is not due for another three months. If you canâ€™t resist speaking objections, there are better places than a deposition to hear yourself talk. Â If you have to file a motion, file one because you have to, not because you got a new crop of summer associates or first year associates doing nothing but writing motions for the sake of writing motions. I can go on, and I am sure that, if youâ€™re a litigator, you can contribute to this list.
Life is too short and our occupations too stressful to engage in the meaningless waste of spirit. Time spent on useless litigation could be time spend with our families. What do you think? Donâ€™t be shy, hop on the soapboxâ€¦.