The question posed in the headline is merely rhetorical: of course outlines aren't uncool. In fact, conducting a deposition without an outline would be a lot like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute.
A related question is how much detail your outline should include. If you're new to the deposition process, your outline should include lots of detail, as this humble post by The Uncivil Litigator makes clear. It means your outline should include not only issues and topics, but many actual questions. Just remember never to become wedded to an outline: to follow up properly on the witness's answers, you have to look away from your outline and listen.
As you become more comfortable with the deposition process, your outline might include only a checklist of issues you want to cover, one that you've prepared ahead of time after carefully thinking about the goals of the deposition in the context of the particular case. But to walk into a deposition without at least this level of preparation? Do it only if you want to risk showing up on the first day of trial and going splat.
Well put, Evan. My suggestion for any new lawyer would be to prepare that first detailed deposition outline, and set a goal for each successive outline after that to have less and less detail. Or, to be more cautious, move to less detail in increments of 5 depositions. So, start out with great detail in depos 1 through 5, slightly less detail in depos 5 through 10, so on and so forth. Each person will have a different pace of course. Eventually the lawyer will find that only a broad issue outline will be enough to take up an entire fun-filled, joyous afternoon of deposition questioning.
Posted by: UCL | December 04, 2004 at 12:19 PM
Get an outliner like Notemap - software I use everyday.
Posted by: Steve | December 06, 2004 at 01:36 PM