Your preparation for depositions will generally be much easier if you think about the ways the testimony will be used at trial. This tip applies to most pretrial discovery: it's almost never an end in itself, but something that will be used later in front of a jury. It's no accident that the ins-and-outs of pretrial discovery often make more sense after a lawyer has witnessed some actual trials. When trials are scarce, even reading trial transcripts helps.
Here's information about the book from the James Publishing website--
Creating an outline is the most efficient way of formalizing your preparation for a deposition.
Use the outlines and pattern questions in Deposition Checklists & Strategies to avoid omissions, improve your advocacy, and handle unfamiliar areas with confidence.
Underlying law. Each chapter begins with a summary of the substantive law at issue. Also included is an analysis of common defenses.
Deposition outlines. Each chapter contains several full-length deposition Q&A sections organized by issue, based on common fact patterns, and directed at specialized deponents like experts, corporate representatives, and treating physicians. The book’s questions are easy to mix and match with your own.
Commentary. Thorny or common issues are annotated with practice-proven alternatives and solutions.
Bonus outlines. Thumbnail checklists that contain themes and issues rather than question-and answer dialogue are provided for less-common deponents.
Related discovery forms. Complaints, interrogatories, requests for admissions, requests to produce, and more finish each chapter.
Practice tips. Sprinkled through each pattern deposition is practical advice learned from hundreds of depositions.
The book also contains pages of strategies for expert depositions, illustrated by outlines in a variety of types of cases.
If you're interested in honing your deposition skills, please take a look at my book--and thanks!
Digging through an old file on a settled case, I came across some notes that I made during a deposition I was defending. It was a simple hit in the rear auto case and I jotted down some of the questions the defense lawyer asked.
Each question, it seemed, was more wretched than the next. None were spoken in plain English.
Read the full post for some (humorous, at least to me) examples. As Turkewitz observes, "It isn’t really hard to abuse the English language. All you need to do is go to law school."
Ernie Svenson's new book Blogging in One Hour For Lawyers (ABA 2012) is targeted at lawyers who don't blog yet but want to learn how. It's a nicely-produced and well-written book. It certainly accomplishes its main goal: teaching lawyers what they need to know to start blogging right away, with clear, step-by-step examples and useful appendices and checklists.
Ernie Svenson is, of course, the author of the blog Ernie the Attorney, which was one of the only law-related blogs I read before starting this blog back in 2004. Svenson sent me a copy of his new book as a gift. Because I'm highly-invested in the question of blogs for lawyers--having kept two blogs going without interruption for nine years (!!!)--I got to work immediately reading the book.
The surprise is how useful Blogging in One Hour for Lawyers would be for veteran bloggers too. In addition to the basics, Svenson also covers a number of technical issues, e.g., domain names, domain mapping, blog promotion, and RSS feeds.
Before I had even finished with the book, I made a change to my blogs based on one of Svenson's recommendations, which was to link my blogs more closely to my Twitter account. I also paid close attention to Svenson's insights into the ethics of blogging, "dealing with criticism," and "best tips for success" ("be honest and down-to-earth about what you believe and why you believe it.")
Don't save your review of an expert's CV for the night before the deposition. Read it well in advance of the deposition, then mark it up and investigate the expert's claims.
Has the expert exaggerated his qualifications? Such exaggerations can seriously undermine his credibility. Has the expert included items on his CV that are simply wrong? It happens. Even typographical errors indicate a level of sloppiness on the expert's part.
I rarely hold the opinion that I am the smartest guy in any room. But when I remind myself of this first “Horton Rule,” I am empowered with the notion that there is an additional X factor that I alone control: how much time and effort I devote to being the better prepared lawyer in the (court) room.
What's the "Horton Rule"? Read Craigie's full post to find out.
A very few lawyers write briefs that stand up and sing on the reader’s desk: The introductory paragraph draws the reader in; the statement of facts tells an interesting story; the argument engagingly (but compellingly) explains an issue, perhaps with a (very light) sense of humor.