Lawyers are known to be talkative. Since attorneys are paid to advocate for their clients, some lawyers may feel as if they have to speak more in order to effectively complete their jobs. Moreover, some lawyers are just talkative people, and this might be one of the reasons that they entered the profession. However, sometimes lawyers are best served by keeping quiet rather than advocating on behalf of a client.
Earlier in my career, I had to argue a matter for a client, and the court scheduled a telephone conference for a temporary restraining order on about an hour’s notice. My adversary was having technical issues. I was raring to go and asked the court if I should start presenting my client’s case since I was not having technical difficulties. The court then correctly advised me that since my adversary was the movant, they should have the first say on the matter.
What Biglaw Can Learn From Personal Injury Firms
How a former insurance agent built a Houston injury practice around systems, empathy, and disciplined advocacy.
During the call, the judge was extremely hostile to my adversary’s position. My adversary had significant hurdles to clear in order to obtain the relief he sought, and he simply did not make out a sufficient case to obtain such relief. Although I really wanted to make the case for my client, I could tell that my adversary was going to lose without me even saying a word, and if I said something, I might complicate matters. In the end, I won the matter on behalf of my client, and I only said a few words in total at the hearing.
At another time in my career, I had a court conference on a case in which all parties were pretty close to a settlement. Accordingly, everyone wanted an adjournment of the conference to have more time to talk about the settlement. I asked my adversary if he wanted to ask the court for an adjournment in advance of the client, and he said that he preferred to ask for the adjournment at the scheduled conference itself.
When the court attorney called all of the cases on the docket, people could either ask for an adjournment or a conference. My adversary asked for a conference and later explained that he wanted to advise the court of the settlement talks rather than merely ask for an adjournment. I was not happy with this approach, since we needed to sit in the courtroom for another 90 minutes to conference the matter with the court rather than merely ask for an adjournment and leave immediately.
When we were finally called to conference the case, my adversary spoke the entire time about what the case was about, the claims, and the status of settlement talks. The court attorney asked if we wanted an adjournment, and we were able to adjourn the matter for a while so that we could finalize the settlement. I have no idea why my adversary could not just ask for an adjournment and leave earlier in the appearance. Perhaps this adversary wanted to bill more time to his client, or perhaps he just loved to hear the sound of his own voice. However, this cost us nearly two hours that could have been saved by speaking less.
Keeping Law School Accessible When Federal Loans Fall Short
As federal borrowing caps tighten financing options for law students, one organization is stepping in to negotiate the terms they can't secure alone.
All told, lawyers might feel a natural urge to talk more at hearings, court conferences, and the like since they might think that more speaking benefits clients. However, lawyers would often be better served by speaking less in certain circumstances.
Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothman.law.