Part of the problem is that we’ve all been trained to do things a certain way. Someone writes a letter, you write back. Someone threatens, you threaten back. Someone raises their voice, you speak louder. Why are you doing this? What are you accomplishing?
For solutions to the problem, read the whole post.
At Abnormal Use, Jim Dedman asks, "Why is discovery rarely, if ever, depicted on lawyer television shows?"--
When is the last time you saw a witness being deposed on a lawyer television show? When is the last time you saw a young associate in a frightful warehouse in the middle of nowhere performing document review? When is the last time you saw a lawyer responding to discovery requests or lodging objections to same? Is it that such tasks are not cinematic in nature? Surely, that’s not it.
I think Dedman is correct when he surmises that the people who write television shows don't have the legal experience from which to create scenes about discovery. (He has some other theories too--read his post.)
The goal of the ... 12 rules is to align the interests of clients/customers and service providers to the fullest extent possible. The rules are not perfect, and can be improved. But this model works--if you work at it. If you follow these rules by building a disciplined culture at your shop where they are enforced and kept alive, your clients and firm both benefit as you go along.
As the owner of a Chicago jury research firm, I’ve seen a number of lawyers make the same mistakes and misjudgments countless times over the years.
In my experience, attorneys spend too much time worrying about things they can’t control, such as opinions expressed during jury selection, and too little time considering how their trial team appears to the court or what a judge might find most helpful.
Rudolph goes on to list "things to stop worrying about," with explanation--
Whether jurors will be turned off by use of technology;
How the jury will react to a witness who seems to have been prepared to testify by a lawyer;
Whether comments made during jury selection have tainted the jury;
How a jury will respond to an expert who makes small admissions that seem to bolster the other side's case.
What's really worth worrying about? According to Rudolph--
A disjointed trial team;
Whether you have sufficiently educated the judge;
Whether you have clearly communicated with the jury throughout the trial.
You can read Rudolph's full article, with its explanatory text, at the link.