As I've written before, one of the best ways to learn deposition techniques is to pay attention to lawyers who are more experienced that you -- most particularly, your opponents.
After all, it's one thing to read how to do a thing, or have it explained to you, but it's quite another to learn from the example of someone who actually knows how to do it better than you do.
This trick of learning by example applies not only to depositions, but to any area of legal practice. Here are some other skills a litigation lawyer can learn from a more-experienced opponent--
- How to strategize during discovery;
- How to write effective interrogatories and requests for admissions;
- How to object to improper discovery;
- How to write letters about discovery disputes;
- How to write an effective brief;
- How to argue a motion in front of the court;
- How to move a case forward by taking an effective deposition;
- How to keep an opponent on the offensive;
- How to make a compelling case for your client at the beginning of a mediation;
- How to present direct testimony during trial;
- How to cross-examine during trial;
- How to persuade a jury at trial during voir dire, opening, and closing.
To take advantage of this learning-from-your-opponents idea, all you have to do is make a file, which will get larger and larger over the months and years, and then resolve to pay attention during your normal day to what other lawyers are doing and how they are doing it.
Use your file to collect all the best form-worthy materials you come across in your practice, as well as all the notes you take about new tricks and techniques you've learned from your opponents.
Finally, remember to be humble enough to acknowledge that it's possible to learn something from an opponent. For many lawyers, this is probably the largest impediment to an ability to learn by example.
This is pretty much ENTIRELY how I learned to practice law -- by watching my opponents. It takes a little while as you add discrimination to your monkey-see-monkey-do, i.e., "the usual stipulations, counsel?" -- no no no, it's meaningless. You also, of course, have to develop your own "voice" but trying on other people's is a good way to start -- it's a lot like creative writing in that way. You sound like Hemingway and Kerouac in your twenties and your very self in your 30's. The best piece of advice anyone ever gave me was this -- no one can be a better Vickie Pynchon than you and you can NEVER be as good as -- say -- Gerry Spence is at being Gerry Spence. It's much much easier to act through your own personality -- but before you find your way -- trying on those of people who are adverse to you -- and then positively resisting behaving like people who you see are not effective -- is one of the best ways to find your own voice as a litigator and trial attorney.
Posted by: Victoria Pynchon | January 25, 2008 at 02:30 PM
When I first started practicing I had no idea how to do a deposition, never watched one, only had some information from a book. This particular case was very big and I was sweating (but noone could tell.) I had all the information, some pretty nasty surprises but didn't know the protocol. The other attorney was very seasoned and a nice guy. You could tell he was at the, 'this is mundane and boring' stage. I casually suggested he could go first and then I made it a point to object and argue (just so I could see how it was handled and he very obligingly was patronizing and professorial at the same time). So when it was my turn I gave it right back at him!
When it was over (and I had gotten absolutely everything I needed and some bonus information) I mentioned to him, 'by the way, this was my first deposition' his jaw dropped. He said, 'I know you are kidding me, right?" I said, 'absolutely not.' That was a sweet moment.
I would not have been taught this doing grunt document review in the cubicle of some large firm in order to 'get some experience' first before I went out to practice law. This is the greatest myth out there. You have to be clever and have faith in yourself and do copious amounts of research.
The same for examining witnesses. Worked like a charm.
Posted by: Susan Cartier-Liebel | January 26, 2008 at 06:38 AM