'Being Nice' and Finishing First
Nice or crabby, a lawyer who does not win his or her share of litigated matters is not going to be a survivor. Which is where being nice gives a lawyer an edge. Not nice-timid or nice-enabling--nice-smart.
January 06, 2018 at 01:32 PM
5 minute read
I read with great interest the recent “10 Survival Tips for Nice People who Happen to be Litigators.” And while author David J. Richardson has some useful tips—yes, you need breaks, and yes, pause before you hit Send—I thought that the lede was buried. For of all the tips needed for survival, the indispensable one is: win. Nice or crabby, a lawyer who does not win his or her share of litigated matters is not going to be a survivor.
Which is where being nice gives a lawyer an edge. I do not mean nice-timid or nice-enabling. I mean nice-smart.
In the field of commercial and corporate litigation where I work, the best lawyers are also nice people. They are confident and self-aware. They have colleagues and protégés who like working with them. They respect the rules. They serve their communities. They don't pick stupid fights or deny reasonable requests or play hide-the-ball.
What do clients see when they hire litigators who double as nice people?
Efficiency. No dumb fights. No unnecessary trips to the courthouse. No extra charges for things that could have been resolved with courtesy and respect.
Focus on the client. If my job is to achieve my client's goals, I am not going to spend my time or my client's money trying to vindicate my sense of self-worth or trying to spank opposing counsel.
Deep thinking. It is far easier to play-act the role of “bulldog” than to actually do the hard work of thinking of the right argument, framing the pointed question, and making the tough analysis. It's always easier to growl than to speak, to snipe than to respond. But what's more effective for the client in the long run?
Focus on opposing client. Here's something that is too little addressed: the unspoken assessment by the opposing party. Stop worrying about how your opposing counsel reacts to your every move and pay more attention to the effect on his or her client. Every day that client is sizing you up. That client is making judgments about the strength of your position, how you will play in front of a judge, whether you seem confident or frantic. Your calm, well-considered statements, letters, and briefs may not sway the opposing party but it may worry that party. And that's exactly how you want that party to feel about you taking the case all the way to trial—worried.
Being petty or shrill helps . . . whom exactly? Judges don't want to read it or hear it. Juries hate it. Junior colleagues wince at it. Your kids wouldn't like to see you do it. Sure, court reporters make a few extra dollars transcribing ad hominem colloquies but other than that?
The client's client. Will your client want to present you to his or her boss? The board? Does he or she see you as someone who is calm or someone given to outbursts? Is your client worried about how you speak about them when they are not around? Does your household-name client see you as a good ambassador for it? Your standing in front of your client's constituencies is better if you're also a nice person.
But what about the twin assertions that acting “aggressive” is what clients expect from litigators and being aggressive means you can't be seen as a nice person? I don't believe it. I have made witnesses cry—not by yelling at them or by throwing paper at them or by screaming at their lawyer. No, you make witnesses cry when you know the case better than they do and you ask them That Question for which they cannot have a glib answer. The tension and pressure of coming up with a response causes the palms to sweat and the ducts to open.
Then why are we told that clients say: “Get me a real pitbull!”? I'm not sure they do if it means they want an aggressive jerk. Aren't clients really saying they want someone who is tough intellectually; thorough; always playing offense; knows how to write and argue; someone who will drive the client's agenda—not someone who can write snippier emails than the other lawyer?
Clients yearn for action verbs from their trial lawyers, not adverbs and interjections. Nice people—polite, reasonable, confident, professional, laser-focused on client's goals—can be tougher to litigate against than the growliest, snarkiest, high-handed sanctions-threatener that ever refused to pick up the phone to resolve something.
So if you are a nice person who is also a litigator, congratulations, and use your power wisely. Nice litigators finish first.
Paul Kiernan is a trial and appellate lawyer in the Washington D.C. office of Holland & Knight LLP. He can be reached at [email protected] or on Twitter @PaulKiernan12
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllShould It Be Left to the Plaintiffs Bar to Enforce Judicial Privacy Laws?
7 minute readA Reporter and a Mayor: Behind the Scenes During the Eric Adams Indictment News Cycle
Of Predictive Analytics and Robots: A First-Year Federal Judge's Thoughts on AI
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
- 2Armstrong Teasdale's London Creditors Face Big Losses
- 3Texas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
- 4Quinn Emanuel Has Thrived in China. Will Trump Help Boost Its Fortunes?
- 5Manufacturer Must Provide Details Surrounding Expert’s Livestreamed Inspection, Fed Court Rules
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250