What regarding the ordeal of the college head of states’ testimonies before Congress recently? What were they assuming? In various other situations, I would certainly have pointed out proudly that all 3 university head of states were women. Yay for development yet muted by their testimonies.
There’s a lesson (or more than one) for us legal representatives in last week’s Congressional sh-tshow. We need to comprehend our target markets, whether they be juries, lawmakers, or anybody else. A distinguished law practice prepared the witnesses for their testaments in these hearings. They didn’t need attorneys, they required public relations people and dilemma managers that might help them craft those testimonies in the best feasible light for their audience. As a New York Times short article pointed out, these head of states were prepped as if affirming as a deposition or in court and except a public forum. They required experts of a various kind. I am not the only one that thought that was not the means to go.
We are not the most intelligent peeps in the space about everything. In contrast to preferred or unpopular belief, attorneys don’t understand all of it or exactly how to do everything, which is why we turn to, or should turn to, various other specialists, professionals, who know their services better than we do. It’s the elevation of hubris to believe otherwise.
Know your audience. This target market was not curious about lawful hair-splitting or parsing. Some responses could have been short and basic if they had been prepared to respond to because method. Possibly they were, possibly they weren’t. I definitely had not been in the room where the prep work happened. Ins and outs and conflicts in plans are one thing, but that was not what the lawmakers intended to hear. Were the speakers sandbagged in a “gotcha” game? Perhaps, possibly not, yet full-throated crucial responses would have been the method to go.
What’s the point of semantic wrangling? Sometimes people simply need to be forthright. (An example of refraining so originally is then Head of state Clinton’s denial in his deposition that he had actually had sexual intercourses with Monica Lewinsky. Google if you’re as well young to bear in mind [sigh] the prominent facts.).
The moral of the tale, at least to me, is to recognize your target market, read the area. What might be flawlessly suitable in one setting can sink like a stone in one more. A little human empathy, a little human emotion on the part of the witnesses, might have gone a long way towards viewing them sympathetically in what was a sensitive circumstance, replete with consequences. Was it a circumstance of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t?” You tell me, however my sticking around perception is that they acted like robotics, like robot, without any type of human touch. Doing the lawfully right point is not always the right thing, at the very least in the general public round. Context anybody?
Occasionally I can’t believe what I check out, even in ATL. Some tales certainly must be the work of an overimaginative mind, right? Stephen Miller, who sadly comes from SoCal (I understand, stifle the remarks, please) now is heralding a loony-tunes concept about Taylor Swift. It would certainly be humorous (and in a way it is) if it weren’t so frightening. Certainly, the concept of Miller (and not simply him, how about Michael Flynn?) in a second Trump administration suffices to drive all of us bat-sh-t insane, much like Lloyd Bridges in the “Aircraft” motion picture.
Whatever has occurred to common sense? Where has that gone? Should that be checked on bench examination? (I understand, Stephen Miller is not an attorney.) Just how would certainly that influence flow rates? Just asking.
Simply one example of an attorney who has no sound judgment, but apparently accumulations Pringles containers. 2 years back, this pissed-off attorney threw a poop-filled can of Pringles (I will certainly never, ever purchase those) right into the car park of an area criminal activity victim advocacy facility. The Ohio High court has suspended the attorney for one year with 6 months stayed.
According to the story in the Cincinnati Enquirer, the attorney– I am not making this up– had a practice of pooping right into Pringles canisters. I wonder if he had a preferred type that he made use of. His protection was that he routinely pooped in the containers and arbitrarily threw them from his car. He claimed that he pranked with Pringles a minimum of 10 times in 2021. the height of the pandemic. That was a tough time for everybody, yet truly?
Maybe he can ask Santa for some common sense, while I will conserve the “Bottoms Up” phrase for New Year’s Eve.
And wanting to end on a happier note, how about congratulating the youngest recently produced attorney below in California? I’m really hoping that he has some life experience before he begins standing for clients.
Just how much common sense did you have at 17? Numerous lawyers who have actually exercised for decades still do not have good sense. You can be the smartest lawyer available, but still not have it. (See above.).
Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.
