An aggressive attorney is
not the screamer, yeller or intimidator. The most aggressive
attorney is one that does not falter from:
1) knowing the rules,
2) asking nicely per the
rule for stuff with a date for production,
3) following up ON THAT
DATE, and asking nicely again with another date,
4) following up with a
phone call ON THE NEXT DATE,
5) following up with a
letter requesting a meet and confer on another date because couldn't resolve the
issue,
6) holding the meet and
confer,
7) filing a motion to
compel,
8) getting an appropriate
order and starting all over to get compliance--all in a nice way since the judge
will probably review all of your communications.
Basically, the very best
attorneys at being aggressive are ones that keep to-do lists and a good
calendaring system as well as being persistent in following
up.
Weak attorneys have LADD (legal attention deficit disorder). They
get excited about every new case and forget about the previous ones that need
follow up.
Attorneys who try to negotiate by intimidation tactics are fun to watch if you know the game they are playing. If you don’t recognize the game, you will get angry and counter-attack. However, he who angers you, controls you.
Recognize what is happening and sidestep the aggression by quickly focusing on the exact nature of the disagreement. Then, you must do two things. First, tell counsel in no uncertain terms that "I do not appreciate your personal attack on me. There is no reason to attack me personally because we disagree." Say something like, "We clearly have a difference of opinion regarding what documents the expert is required to bring. Let me make sure I understand your position. It is your belief that the expert is not required to bring the documents that we have been discussing and I believe he can. We will let the judge resolve that dispute. However, just because we disagree, that is no reason for you to personally attack me." Second attempt to determine what issues you can agree upon. At the very least, you and opposing counsel can crystallize your positions, i.e., determine whether you disagree and the basis of each of your theories. It may be that once you are fully informed of the basis of opposing counsel's objections, you will agree with him. It is much more difficult to accept the validity of opposing counsel's point of view if he or she has made a personal attack upon you, especially if your response escalated the attack.
Professional attorneys don’t need intimidation tactics. They press the case forward as fast as possible. This conduct should be your role model. Keep the opposing attorney always on the defensive. You file the motion, you set the 16.1 conference, you notice the depositions, etc. There is nothing more aggressive than keeping the opposing counsel on his or her heels by holding their feet to the fire.
Aggressive attorneys can grant extensions to answer discovery and still be aggressive by calendaring when the answers are due, sending faxes and calling to try to get a response and filing motions to compel if your opponent does not meet the time deadlines. This means being detailed in calendaring and following up on deadlines. A good system to follow up on these time deadlines is imperative.
If you think your job is to win, you have nothing but disappointment in your future. Your job is to take the facts and package them in the most persuasive way. You can file motions, maneuver and outwit your opponent, but in the end, the judge or jury decides who wins. All that an attorney can do for his or her client is package the facts in the most persuasive way possible.
Aggressive attorneys don’t give up just because a judge has indicated he or she may rule against you. Politely try to make your argument. If the judge won't let you, ask "May I state my objection for the record?"
Attorneys who try to negotiate by intimidation tactics are fun to watch if you know the game they are playing. If you don’t recognize the game, you will get angry and counter-attack. However, he who angers you, controls you.
Recognize what is happening and sidestep the aggression by quickly focusing on the exact nature of the disagreement. Then, you must do two things. First, tell counsel in no uncertain terms that "I do not appreciate your personal attack on me. There is no reason to attack me personally because we disagree." Say something like, "We clearly have a difference of opinion regarding what documents the expert is required to bring. Let me make sure I understand your position. It is your belief that the expert is not required to bring the documents that we have been discussing and I believe he can. We will let the judge resolve that dispute. However, just because we disagree, that is no reason for you to personally attack me." Second attempt to determine what issues you can agree upon. At the very least, you and opposing counsel can crystallize your positions, i.e., determine whether you disagree and the basis of each of your theories. It may be that once you are fully informed of the basis of opposing counsel's objections, you will agree with him. It is much more difficult to accept the validity of opposing counsel's point of view if he or she has made a personal attack upon you, especially if your response escalated the attack.
Professional attorneys don’t need intimidation tactics. They press the case forward as fast as possible. This conduct should be your role model. Keep the opposing attorney always on the defensive. You file the motion, you set the 16.1 conference, you notice the depositions, etc. There is nothing more aggressive than keeping the opposing counsel on his or her heels by holding their feet to the fire.
Aggressive attorneys can grant extensions to answer discovery and still be aggressive by calendaring when the answers are due, sending faxes and calling to try to get a response and filing motions to compel if your opponent does not meet the time deadlines. This means being detailed in calendaring and following up on deadlines. A good system to follow up on these time deadlines is imperative.
If you think your job is to win, you have nothing but disappointment in your future. Your job is to take the facts and package them in the most persuasive way. You can file motions, maneuver and outwit your opponent, but in the end, the judge or jury decides who wins. All that an attorney can do for his or her client is package the facts in the most persuasive way possible.
Aggressive attorneys don’t give up just because a judge has indicated he or she may rule against you. Politely try to make your argument. If the judge won't let you, ask "May I state my objection for the record?"
Posts
