Do you fight over discovery? Admit it. It’s ok, we’re all friends here, no?
Apparently lawyers still wage discovery battles. I won’t pretend that I’m immune. I still mix it up with the best of them. But I came across an article in the November, 2013 issue of Practical Law which attempts to make a compelling case why we might serve our clients better by adopting a spirit of cooperation.
In their article, “Learning to Cooperate,” Jonathan Redgrave and Peter Hennigan talk about The Cooperation Proclamation originally published by The Sedona Conference in 2008. They say:
“At the time of its release, The Cooperation Proclamation provided attorneys with a practical, if aspirational, framework to understand cooperation. Today, there is really no longer any question of whether or not counsel should cooperate in discovery. Cooperation is required by the current and proposed rules, expected by the courts and consistent with attorneys’ ethical obligations. Perhaps most important, cooperation is also what the clients want.” (Id. at 27.)
Well hold on now. Isn’t litigation an adversarial process? What about zealous advocacy? We’re talking about opposing parties and opposing counsel here, right?
Merriam-Webster defines “cooperation”–which, in case you wondered, is pronounced (?)k?-?ä-p?-?r?-sh?n–as “1 : the action of cooperating: common effort; 2 : association of persons for common benefit.”
“Common effort?” “Common benefit?” What!?! Your guy sued my guy, right? You’re demanding some ridiculous sum of money and, because my client won’t just pay you, you’ve prepared and filed a civil complaint, dragging my client into court, isn’t that right? Why on God’s green earth would my client want to make any common effort to do anything for your client’s benefit?
Before we get our dandruff up,† let’s stop for a second and find out what “cooperation” is supposed to mean in this context. Are we supposed to just give in? Roll over? Do our opponent’s job for them? The authors claim the answer is no. Citing the Proclamation, Redgrave and Hennigan say:
“The Sedona Conference explicitly states that cooperation:
Is not capitulation.
Is not an abdication of appropriate and vigorous advocacy.
Does not require volunteering legal theories to opposing counsel or suggesting paths along which discovery might take place.” (Id., citing The Case for Cooperation, 10 Sedona Conf. J., 339, 340, 359 (2009).)
What’s left? Here, the authors offer some “ABCs of Cooperation.” A few of these make a lot of sense:
“Be flexible. Like any negotiation, counsel may have to compromise or use alternative means to get the discovery or relief that the client needs.
Consider what discovery is truly needed, and not just desired.
Document the agreements reached with opposing counsel, as well as any areas of dispute, and try to obtain resolution without the court’s intervention where possible.” (Id. at 29.)
I can go along with these. But I think it needs to be said that the rationale underlying this spirit of cooperation should properly be that it ultimately benefits our clients. If done properly, cooperation in litigation and discovery saves our clients money. It makes their lives easier. As the authors point out:
“The best argument in favor of cooperation is that clients want it. Clients are beginning to realize that a scorched-earth approach to discovery, and the wasteful and time-consuming discovery disputes such an approach invites, rarely (if ever) serves their interests. Moreover, clients want cooperation because they recognize that being cooperative enhances their attorneys’ credibility with the court.” (Id.)
Where I part ways with the authors is their appeal to some other, ethereal motive for cooperation. They spend a lot of time citing various courts and model rules, etc. and harp on about “duties to the tribunal, the judicial system, opposing counsel and opposing parties.” (Id.) Blah, blah, blah. Save it! What matters at the end of the day–at least for those of us in the trenches–is getting the best possible outcome for our clients. If the straightest road to that result is through cooperation, I’m all for it. But let’s not forget it’s our client–not opposing counsel or opposing parties–who keeps the lights burning.
†The earliest known citation for this strange saying was in the April, 1853 Wisconsin Tribune, wherein someone apparently wrote: “‘Well, gosh-all Jerusalem, what of it?’ now yelled the downeaster, getting his dandruff up.”
I found a fantastic interview of trial legend Edward Bennett Williams from the Winter, 1986 issue of Litigation which I intend to read and re-read like the Bible.
Among the myriad of topics he discusses was the kind of “team” he works with at trial, which led to a discussion of trying “big document” cases. Many lawyers, even seasoned trial lawyers, tend to make the assumption that the bigger the issues to be decided by the jury, the more witnesses and paper–documents–are needed to prove a party’s case or defense. If an outsider was to simply look at the kind of discovery conducted in any big case, he or she would easily assume that, if the documents were worth seeking in costly discovery, they must have been germane and, ultimately, indispensable to winning.
Williams takes issue with this kind of thinking. He suggests that, in all but the most complex cases, lawyers tend to “multiply documents” unnecessarily. In the end, being unnecessarily document intensive does not further their clients’ interests or bring them closer to victory. Responding to interviewer Priscilla Anne Schwab, Williams says:
“Mr. Williams: I was brought up in a school of practice in which one person tried a case and tried it in toto. Even with some help, in the courtroom there was only one voice. And I like that.
Ms. Schwab: What about a complex case, say, an antitrust action with thousands of pages of documents, hundreds of witnesses. How can you handle that in a courtroom singlehandedly? With total control?
Mr. Williams: My impression of that so-called ‘big document’ case is that 95 percent of the documents are worthless. Just piles of paper to impress the jury. One of the great tragedies of litigation today is these paper wars. The whole profession gains nothing but disrepute when one of these big firms puts 21 lawyers on a case, and they start multiplying documents, paper times paper.
Now obviously in a few cases, the issues are so complex that there are, maybe, thousands of documents. But my experience has been that law firms multiply paper unnecessarily. They make litigation more prolific than necessary. They don’t have an instinct for the jugular. They don’t isolate the major issues of the case and simplify them into comprehensibility. And they engage in massive overkill in discovery.
Ms. Schwab: But there always seems to be a need for more discovery. You say yourself you must uncover every fact, however remotely relevant.
Mr. Williams: True, but discovery today is not used primarily to uncover facts. It’s used to delay, to obfuscate, and, too often, to replace real investigation.” Litigation, Vol. 12, No. 2, Winter 1986, p.30.
As an armchair expert on the topic of laziness, I wonder if the tendency to use excessive discovery rather than going “for the jugular,” as Williams puts it, stems from the fact that isolating “the major issues of the case and simplify[ing] them into comprehensibility” takes really hard work and focused thought. I suspect this is part of it. I suspect the other part is related to the fact that there is big money in putting armies of lawyers on cases and multiplying paper. Cynical me!
Whatever the cause, the end result brings clients no closer to victory. So, even if you feel the need to burn everything to the ground in discovery, remember when it comes time to try the case to isolate the major issues and “simplify them into comprehensibility.”
1. Find a lawyer you trust. This sounds obvious, but it can take some searching to find the right attorney. He or she must be competent in your eyes, or your stress level will increase. Equally important, your lawyer must be able to manage the stress of the suit or, again, your stress level will be worsened.
2. Trust the lawyer you find. Once you find the right lawyer, trust him or her. It is rare that your lawyer will not want and expect you to be truthful with him or her, even if the facts are bad or embarrassing. Your lawyer is in the best position to help you or your company; arm him or her with the true facts.
3. Participate in your case. I have found that individual clients who take an active role in their case experience a feeling of control. It’s not illusory. Your lawyer can only work with the tools and materials made available to him or her. You can do quite a lot, by locating and organizing documents, educating your lawyer about the nuances of your business or the circumstances of the case.
4. Manage your anger, fear or frustration. The stress of being the target of a lawsuit is not dissimilar from other traumatic or stressful events. Experts coach those going through a divorce or enduring a tragedy to use exercise or relaxation techniques, like meditation, to manage the stress. Think of a lawsuit in the same way. One caveat: bear in mind that communications with someone other than a spouse or lawyer about the details of the case can be “discovered” and potentially used against you if you say something damaging. Consult with your lawyer before speaking in any detail about your case with someone who is not your spouse.
5. Try not to direct your anger or frustration at your loved ones. This will only make it worse and potentially cause damage that can be permanent.
6. Try not to direct your anger at your lawyer. Don’t kill the messenger. In most instances, your lawyer is doing the best he or she can to protect your interests.
7. Brace for the long haul, but know it will come to an end. The cliché, “this, too, shall pass,” is true. Every lawsuit will come to an end, and there will be an opportunity for closure and new beginnings.