Ignore Your Opponent in a Deposition

A common technique your opponent may use in a deposition, particularly if he is older or more experienced than you, is to rattle your concentration with obnoxious behavior such as improper objections, loud sighs, rattling of a newspaper, etc. I have found that an equally effective defense to this technique is to completely ignore the obnoxious behavior. Focus on the deponent and your game plan and refuse the opposing lawyer's invitation to be drawn into an argument. In fact, you should simply pretend he's not there, unless he makes an objection to one of your questions that is worthy of your consideration.

The obnoxious behavior I've described may pose ethical issues to be considered on another day. In the meantime, however, consider this hypothetical, based on a true story: You are defending a deposition that is being conducted by someone more experienced than you who has not learned the importance of ignoring the other side. Even though you are less experienced, you are well aware of your opponent's weakness. You also know that if you object in just the right tone of voice, and do it just a couple of times, he will explode with anger, making it difficult for him to stay on track for the rest of the deposition.

If you can make the other lawyer angry, you will thwart his deposition goals. Would it be ethically proper to adopt the magical anger-inducing tone of voice in making proper objections?

Comments

[UCL]

I use the Ignore Strategy routinely, to deal with opposing counsel who are acting like jerks. Here's an example, keeping in mind that in my state (in state litigation) the only valid objections you can make during a deposition are "Form" and "Foundation."

UCL: Mr. Smith, why did you make that decision?

Counsel: UCL, I object. Asked and answered. We've already gone over this a hundred times and I think he's already answered the question. This is outrageous. You're somewhere out in leftfield right now. No not even that, you're in the bleachers. I've never seen anything like this before. Let's move on already!

UCL: Mr. Smith, why did you make that decision?

Counsel: [now sounding more angry] blah blah blah blah blah!!!

UCL: Counsel do you want to call the judge to intervene and decide whether I'm permitted to get a responsive answer to my question, right now, this very moment?

Counsel: I didn't say that.

UCL: So Mr. Smith, tell me, why did you make that decision?

[And Mr. Smith answers]