The Art of Advocacy

Maryland Discovery Problems & Solutions is a new book co-authored by Chief Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm, Charles Fax (of Rifkin, Livingston, Levitan & Silver) and yours truly. We and others offered an unusual seminar based on the book at the Maryland State Bar Association's annual meeting in Ocean City last week. The Daily Record ran this preview of the event.

If you think you know discovery rules inside and out, note Judge Grimm's comment in the article:

Issues Grimm said he sees all too frequently include “non-particularized or generalized boilerplate objections” to discovery requests, which give the judge little insight when ruling on the subsequent motion to compel; lawyers stating facts in motions without supporting them with a citation to any affidavit or document; and lawyers who fail to realize that litigation proceeds in an “adversarial system but in discovery you have to cooperate” and compromise.

For those who want to brush up on MD discovery rules, you're not too late for two upcoming MICPEL programs on the same topic, offered on June 17 and July 16. Details available here.

Posted by Paul Mark Sandler | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Discovery , Judges , Professional Growth , Training Opportunities

Bookmark:

More on the subject of researching judges:

In addition to reading prior opinions and talking with former law clerks, court personnel, and other attorneys about the judge's manner and preferences, be sure to observe the jurist in court, particularly if you are presenting a case before him/her for the first time. There is no substitute for this firsthand knowledge.

Observe the judge's style, what s/he seems to like and dislike, how s/he relies on other cases. Then, tailor your presentation to these preferences. (Without, of course, compromising your own natural style.)

By way of example, consider the story of a young trial lawyer defending a criminal assault case.

Continue reading "Researching judges" »

Posted by Paul Mark Sandler | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Judges , Persuasion

Bookmark:

The last post touched on writing for judges. Now let's consider prepping for an appearance in court. According to the receiver-centered school of rhetoric, the more you know about the jurist's attitudes, values, personality and background, the more effective an argument you can fashion.

How do you research a judge? To begin with, read all relevant opinions and other writings to gain an appreciation of the judge's views. If those views differ from the position you plan to present in court, be ready to acknowledge this difference, as a show of respect, and then explain why the jurist should hear you out. Think of the potential embarrassment if you started arguing your point, ignoring the court's standing on the matter. That kind oversight will be detrimental to your ethos in many cases.

Second, you will need insight into the judge's mannerisms, style and idiosyncrasies. For example, will the judge be receptive to your moving away from the lectern? Will she have read your brief before oral argument? How much time should you devote to the facts or to the questions presented? Does the judge have a long or short attention span? Does he pepper counsel with many questions? Reading opinions won't provide answers to questions like these.

Continue reading "Communicating with Judges at Trial" »

Posted by Paul Mark Sandler | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Judges , Persuasion

Bookmark:

It's obvious that attorneys should research judges before they argue before them, and that they should write their briefs with the judges' philosophies and predilections in mind. Why, then, do judges remain so frustrated with how lawyers write motions?

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia apparently feels so strongly about the subject of legal writing that he's devoted much of his new book to it (Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Cases). If you haven't time to read the book, you might check out this older article, published in 2002 by Georgetown law professor Kristen K. Robbins Tiscione. The piece summarizes the results of an unusual survey of federal judges on the subject of legal writing. Three hundred and fifty-five judges took part in September 1999, and their collective responses portray a judiciary that is a bit fed-up with long-winded briefs that are nonetheless lacking crucial legal analysis.

Continue reading "Writing for Judges" »

Posted by Paul Mark Sandler | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Judges , Persuasion

Bookmark: