A Young Attorney's Perspective on Navigating an Unfamiliar Venue
Having only appeared in court in Philadelphia County during my first year of practice, I wanted to be able to expand my client base. In order to do so I needed an understanding of practice and procedure in other venues.
May 01, 2019 at 01:14 PM
6 minute read
It was a scorching hot summer day and my first time practicing in a courthouse in another county and I felt uneasy. Initially walking into a courthouse in another county or state can be intimidating. However, there are some practical steps that a young attorney can take in order to make the endeavor not only manageable, but rather a valuable learning experience. Most importantly it can help ensure the best possible outcome for your client.
Having only appeared in court in Philadelphia County during my first year of practice, I wanted to be able to expand my client base. In order to do so I needed an understanding of practice and procedure in other venues. Looking back on my venture into previously unchartered waters, I would like to share several key points that I learned that a novice practitioner should be aware of.
|Look at the Court's Website
Taking some time to purview the website of that particular court can give some invaluable practical tips. For example, is there parking close by? Is there a customer service area where you can ask questions? Are there public copier machines available? Is there wifi capability for laptops? Do you need a password? What is the cellphone-use policy? Also, the website provides substantive advice. Many of the forms that you need to comply with local rules of that venue are published right there. For example Montgomery County's website has sample forms for primary custody, modification, relocation, intervention and agreement petitions along with instruction as to where to file and costs involved. They also provide a list of qualified professional therapist, drug and alcohol, anger management services and many other resources local to Montgomery County.
|Know the Local Rules of Procedure
The local rules provide the road map that the practitioner must follow in order to navigate the unchartered waters of an unfamiliar venue.
I learned this early on when confronted with a simple issue of filing petition in a child custody matter. Specifically, each county in the commonwealth has its own service requirements that need to be satisfied when attempting to perfect service in a domestic relations matter. Some counties, such as Philadelphia, are considerably more lenient in satisfying this requirement (i.e., serving the opposing party via certified mail, first class mail or sheriff/constable). The court's website or the county's local rules of procedures, (which are generally available online) will provide greater detail for the practitioner. You will inevitably find that Judges and masters will be pleased when you have a handle on these specific nuances and follow the strictures of the local county rules.
|Be Familiar With the Judges
Another important factor for young lawyers in practice is to learn about the judge before whom you are entering your appearance. Ask questions of lawyers that you know who may have appeared before that judge. If opposing counsel regularly practices in that particular state or county he probably has familiarity with the idiosyncrasies of that judge or even court staff in that room. A young lawyer's ability to adapt to a judge's unique “dos or dont's” will help you make a good—or bad—impression in front of that judge. Is the judge someone who likes you to move on rapidly in your line of questioning and wants you to get to the point? Is he someone who likes you to speak up? Is the judge one who has a reputation for scowling at lawyers or witnesses with whom he is losing his patience? To be forewarned is to be forearmed. You don't want to irritate the judge or be rattled by their behavior and lose your train of thought or be derailed from your mission.
|Know the State Rules of Evidence
Every state has their own distinctions. Know them as they pertain to your case. For example, in a child custody action, courts vary as to whether a child may testify (based on age and other factors). Some courts will permit hearsay evidence in particular actions involving minor children. Depending on the practice area, the rules of evidence can vary. Prior to stepping foot in a courtroom, a young attorney must be familiar with and know how to deal with evidentiary objections. Opposing counsel will inevitably move to admit a piece of evidence or object to a question. One must be able to deal with these issues early on and knowledge of the rules will automatically strengthen your credibility in the eyes of the court.
|Reach Out to Your Professional Network
Speak to other attorneys who practice in the county or surrounding area about the courthouse's culture. A strong professional network is an invaluable resource. Arrive early and get to know court personnel and staff. They are the people who are the backbone of the courthouse. They can be very helpful or not so helpful. Treat them with the respect that they deserve. Greet them cordially and introduce yourself with a smile. The legal community is ripe with practitioners who have years of experience practicing day to day in the same arena where we are just getting our start. It is essential to find the right mentor(s), seek advice and ask questions. Early on this is something that I made a point to do and it has proven to be invaluable in giving me advice I never learned in law school. I discovered that many seasoned lawyers—rather than being secretive about their practical knowledge—have been eager to share. Many delight in telling their “war stories.” I learned for example, that in a certain county jury awards are notoriously low in certain type of negligence cases. The seasoned lawyer told me to find an ethical way to get the venue changed. He had nothing to gain from giving me that advice, but was just eager to help a young lawyer on his way.
Mario D'Adamo III, of D'Adamo Law, maintains a general practice in Philadelphia and surrounding counties, focusing primarily on domestic relations, in addition to criminal defense and estate litigation. He worked as an assistant city solicitor for Philadelphia in the child welfare unit. Additionally, he represented a local union in various domestic relations matters. Contact him at [email protected].
|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 AllFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readSupreme Court's Ruling in 'Students for Fair Admissions' and Its Impact on DEI Initiatives in the Workplace
6 minute readMembership Has Its Privileges: Bankruptcy Court Examines LLC's Authority to File Bankruptcy
8 minute readTrending Stories
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