Law Tips: A Professional’s Advice on Clarity, Compassion and Confidence in the Courtroom

“A trial is a highly prepared, precise operation. A good attorney must engage a jury of ordinary people with complex data and ideas. Like a great work of theatre, all the elements must come together to create a cohesive and vivid picture in the minds of the jurors. But unlike a play, a trial may put real lives, reputations, and fortunes at stake. It is critical that impressions are managed and stories are clear.”

I welcome David Mann, The Professional Education Group, Minneapolis, MN, as our latest Law Tips faculty participant. His comments above are a part of his ICLEF seminar, Advanced Skills of Storytelling and Persuasion for Litigators.” Mr. Mann engages attendees in the key concepts of persuasive delivery and storytelling for lawyers based on techniques drawn from the performing arts. I’ll tell you more about both David and how you can take advantage of his CLE program later in this article. Now, let’s bring the curtain up on his presentation of the keys to clarity, compassion and confidence in the courtroom. David begins by re-examining the central idea of any trial lawyer’s preparation:

Persuasion:
Persuasion is about how they’ll hear, not what you’ll say. Though this sounds incredibly simple, it’s actually quite counter-intuitive. We tend to prepare what we say as though we’ll be speaking to ourselves – or someone who thinks like us. But that is rarely the case. In order to be persuasive it is critical to orient your words and ideas to the listener, based on whatever knowledge about them you’re able to gather or perceive.

LAWYER

  • Logical
  • Responds to data
  • Problem-focused
  • Collects pertinent information,analyzes the information, reaches a logical, sound conclusion based on the evidence

JURY

  • Emotional
  • Responds to images
  • People-focused
  • Uses general knowledge ofhow life works, constructs a story, uses data to justify their emotional conclusion

There is a gap between these two very different thinking styles, and bridging that gap should be the primary focus of a lawyer’s communication preparation for trial. Understanding and navigating the dynamic between the logical, data-driven lawyer and the emotional, image-driven jury is key to persuasion. With this in mind, it becomes clear that the story of the case and each individual story within it must be clear, human, and engaging in order to be persuasive.

A jury sits in an unfamiliar environment (the courtroom), absorbing a tremendous amount of unfamiliar material (the case), and is asked to make a fair judgment of right or wrong. If a lawyer doesn’t take this into consideration, it becomes easy to inadvertently talk over their heads and not engage them. It’s critical that an attorney makes every effort to resonate with a jury as a credible authority whom they can trust to speak their language and guide them through this unfamiliar landscape. Managing your presentation to communicate humanness (trust and likability) as well as authority (knowledge and confidence) will be perceived by the jury as credibility long before any facts emerge.

The Myth of Natural

Though the importance of delivery is undisputed, it’s common for lawyers to spend much less time practicing it than they do preparing the rest of the case. The prevailing idea- as it is for salespeople, teachers, politicians, etc.- is that all you need to do is simply “be yourself” at the moment of truth. But that’s when things go wrong, because it becomes painfully clear that there is no such thingas a “natural” delivery under such artificial circumstances. Actors know very well how much work goes into appearing to be natural and relaxed, on cue, every time. The same truth is key to every lawyer’s success. Learning how to manage your face, body, gestures, and vocal inflections is a skill unto itself. There’s nothing natural about it at all. But with practice, a lawyer can develop a courtroom persona that “reads” as natural to juries, witnesses, and judges, and projects the authenticity they want to convey.

Perception of Meaning

Human beings perceive much more about a speaker’s intention from non-verbal cues than from the words themselves. It always important to consider this, especially when constructing openings and summations. The human face has tens of thousands of subtle combinations of eye, mouth, and brow movements that are all associated with certain intentions. Likewise, the human voice has a virtually limitless capacity for expression using combinations of tone, pace, and volume. And tiny shifts of the shoulders, arms, legs, and hands can communicate enormous amounts of meaning to a jury. Ideally this unspoken 93% is consistent with your spoken message. But pay attention. Sometimes it can dramatically undercut what you’re saying and elicit an unwanted response.

The word “subtext” is not a word that is often used outside the art of theatre. The concept, however, is present in every act of human communication. It’s the idea that there is an entirely separate message being conveyed that exists “under” the words. For lawyers, there are specific subtext messages that are desirable and others that are not. A good lawyer acts as a conduit between the case and the jury, giving a human face to the otherwise complex and static trial data. Much of this is of course is done with words, but always remember to navigate the subtext as its own communication layer, filled with persuasive possibility.

The Three Cs

For persuasive power with ordinary people – the jury – three principles must be present: Clarity, Compassion and Confidence. Without clarity, nothing else can happen; without compassion (humanness), it’s just a recitation of facts. Only once those two factors are established does it become important to project your knowledge and authority.

It’s intermission time in David Mann’s discussion of integral persuasion skills for litigators. Return to Law Tips next week when he takes you into the specifics of rhetorical delivery…. “Although it is unnecessary for a lawyer to have the vocal and physical dexterity of an actor, there are many areas where a lawyer’s persuasive power will increase by managing the two tools of rhetorical delivery: voice and body.”

There is an opportunity for you to earn CLE credits through Mr. Mann’s ICLEF training.  Enroll for our On Demand online presentation of the Advanced Skills of Storytelling and Persuasion for Litigators seminar through our website by Clicking Here.

_________________________________________________________________________________

About our Law Tips faculty participant:
David Mann is a speaker, trainer, and professional actor/director. He has a specialized focus on persuasive presentation for lawyers, and he is on the faculty of NITA (National Institute for Trial Advocacy) and Loyola School of Law.  A professional theater artist for over two decades, David has performed or directed for many recognized theatre companies.  He has written and performed five critically acclaimed one-man shows, and he is a recipient of a Bush Artist Fellowship for Storytelling.  David is a graduate of Northwestern University, and the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art.  If you have questions for David or would like to inquire about his coaching, contact him at david@davidcmann.com. For speaking engagements go to the Professional Education Group at proedgroup.com.

About our Law Tips blogger:
Nancy Hurley has long-standing connections with Indiana lawyers. She was formerly a member of the ISBA and IBF staffs for over 30 years. Nancy’s latest lifestyle venture is with ICLEF. We are utilizing her exceptional writing and interviewing skills while exploring how her Indiana-lawyer background fits with ICLEF’s needs. When she isn’t ferreting out new topics for Law Tips, her work can be found in our Speaker Spotlight blogs, postings on the ICLEF Facebook and Twitter pages, and other places her legal experience lends itself.

Thank you for reading Law Tips. You may subscribe to this weekly blog through the RSS link at the top of this page.  Also, you are encouraged to comment below or email Nancy. She welcomes your input as she continues to sift through the treasure trove of knowledge of our CLE faculty to share with you.

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Law Tips, News0 Comments

Law Tips: Is Unpaid Child Support an Asset in the Child’s Subsequent Bankruptcy? Maybe.

There are possibly enormous repercussions for bankruptcy clients from the ruling in Perkinson v. Perkinson, 989 N.E.2d 758 (Ind. 2013) per Tom Yoder, Barrett & McNagny, Fort Wayne. Tom recently raised a red flag concerning this domestic relations case during the 2014 Indiana Law Update. He is generously providing our Law Tips readers with his insights on the issues he sees developing.

In a case of some significance to family law practitioners, the Indiana Supreme Court, in the strongest language possible, declared void as a matter of public policy any agreement between divorced parents excusing the payment of child support in exchange for giving up child visitation time. As Justice David wrote, “It is incomprehensible to this Court to imagine that either parent would ever stipulate to give up parenting time in lieu of not paying child support.” Yet, that is precisely what happened in this case and, in striking down such agreements, Justice David made clear no court should ever allow it to happen again.

All well and good, but of what bankruptcy relevance is this decision? In the course of its opinion, the Court made the following comments: “Even if it is not in a child’s best interest to visit with a parent, it is still in that child’s best interest to be financially supported by that parent. It is well established that the right to child support lies exclusively with the child and that a custodial parent holds the support payments in trust for the benefit of the child.” Sickels v. State, 982 N.E.2d 1010, 1013 (Ind. 2013) citing In re Hambright, 762 N.E.2d 98, 10l(Ind.2002); Hicks v. Smith, 919 N.E.2d 1169, 1171 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. Custodial parents who receive child support funds act as a trustee, and, “as a constructive trustee, [the custodial parent] may not contract away the benefits of the trust.” Nill v. Martin, 686 N.E.2d 116, 118 (Ind. 1997). To do so would violate the fiduciary duty the custodial parent owes the child in relation to any child support funds.”

In other words, the right to child support, and presumably the right to enforce child support obligations, ultimately belongs to the child, not the custodial parent who acts merely as a “constructive trustee.” Accordingly, neither parent has the right to bargain away the child’s support rights or, in bankruptcy parlance, take the child’s “property.”

Therefore, subject to the applicable statute of limitations, do individuals filing for bankruptcy relief in Indiana now have a duty to list all unpaid child support, even from years past, as assets on their bankruptcy Schedules and in their Statement of Financial Affairs? Do debtors’ counsel now have an affirmative duty to inquire of potential clients whether their parents ever divorced and, if so, were all child support obligations paid? More significantly, may bankruptcy trustees in such cases now bring Adversary Proceedings for turnover against nonpaying parents to recover unpaid child support on behalf of the child’s (now presumably an adult) creditors?

To date, there do not appear to be any reported Indiana bankruptcy decisions on the issue. However, in time, aggressive trustees searching for non-exempt assets from which to pay administrative expenses and unsecured claims are sure to make the effort. Considering the amount of unpaid child support existing at any point in time in Indiana, the amounts in controversy could well be enormous.

Author’s further comment: This is a clear case of Yoder’s Law of Unintended Consequences. I very much doubt Justice David had any idea he might be opening Pandora’s bankruptcy box when he ended the practice of divorced parents entering into child support/visitation exchange agreements. By trying to help children of divorce, he ironically may have inadvertently opened another potential avenue of post-dissolution family discord.   The unanswered question is how far Bankruptcy Courts will be willing to extend this decision to debtor/creditor relations.

We appreciate Tom Yoder’s contributions to ICLEF, both as an ongoing faculty member and a participant in Law Tips. Tom’s comprehensive bankruptcy law presentation is a portion of the 2014 Indiana Law UpdateTM as On Demand Seminars. Are you aware that under the MCLE rule you may take up to 6-hours of your 36-hour requirement by viewing an ICLEF On Demand/Online Seminar?

_________________________________________________________________________________

About our Law Tips faculty participants:
Thomas P. Yoder is a partner with law firm of Barrett & McNagny LLP in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and concentrates his practice in the areas of business bankruptcy, creditors’ rights and general insolvency matters. He is a Fellow of the American College of Bankruptcy. He has also written and lectured extensively on bankruptcy and  insolvency-related topics and is a co-author of Bankruptcy- A Survival Guide for Lenders (First ed. 1997; Second ed. 2008), published by the American Bankruptcy Institute and winner of the ABI’ s Outstanding Publications Award (1997).

Anne E. Simerman was a co-author of the Indiana Law Update materials used in this article.  She  is a partner with the law firm of Barrett & McNagny LLP, and concentrates her practice in the areas of Commercial and Consumer Finance, Commercial Law and Bankruptcy, as well as general corporate and business law. She is a contributing author to Bankruptcy: A Survival Guide for Lenders, American Bankruptcy Institute, Deborah L. Fletcher and Thomas P. Yoder 1st Ed. (1997). She has contributed to ICLEF’s Annual Update on Bankruptcy and Commercial Law (2003-2013) and numerous other related CLE programs.

About our Law Tips blogger:
Nancy Hurley has long-standing connections with Indiana lawyers. She was formerly a member of the ISBA and IBF staffs for over 30 years. Nancy’s latest lifestyle venture is with ICLEF. We are utilizing her exceptional writing and interviewing skills while exploring how her Indiana-lawyer background fits with ICLEF’s needs. When she isn’t ferreting out new topics for Law Tips, her work can be found in our Speaker Spotlight blogs, postings on the ICLEF Facebook and Twitter pages, and other places her legal experience lends itself.

Thank you for reading Law Tips. You may subscribe to this weekly blog through the RSS link at the top of this page.  Also, you are encouraged to comment below or email Nancy. She welcomes your input as she continues to sift through the treasure trove of knowledge of our CLE faculty to share with you.

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Law Blogs, Law Tips0 Comments

Law Tips: Trying Cases in a World of Media Overload: Adapting to the Audience’s Expectations.

Welcome back to our Law Tips discussion by Tony Paganelli on issues a trial lawyer can encounter in today’s world of media overload. Last week Tony provided pointers on preparing your client for the litigation process. (If you missed that article, it’s below.) In this week’s blog he takes the case to the judge and jury. Mr. Paganelli believes that even though TV and movies create an image removed from real life litigation, there are ways a trial lawyer can adapt successfully in the courtroom. I’m pleased to provide to our Law Tips readers his insights on adapting to the audience’s expectations:

Although a lawyer can (hopefully) communicate in advance with a client in such a way as to condition him or her to understand that lawsuits in real life are far removed from what they see in the movies or on TV, a lawyer has no such opportunity with a judge or jury. To a large extent, a lawyer must adapt to meet those expectations as much as possible in hopes of winning a case. Put simply, Johnnie Cochran and the cast of CSI have ruined it for the rest of us. Fortunately, there are many ways to create a polished and sophisticated impression without breaking the bank or distracting from the message that you want to convey on your client’s behalf. The two main areas where these issues come into play are courtroom visuals and “theatrical” performances of counsel.

First, lawyers must decide whether theirs is a case that lends itself well to multimedia presentations, and whether their judge and courtroom are good candidates for such presentations. If the answers to these questions are “yes,” then it is worth considering using these tools to enhance a courtroom performance.

While certain courtroom animations and computerized visual effects can be cost-prohibitive for many lawyers, and in addition to being complicated to use in a courtroom and temperamental to the point of being unreliable, recent advances in technology have made impressive-looking presentations both easier to use and less expensive than in the recent past. In fact, Microsoft PowerPoint, that staple of meetings and conferences, is both powerful and flexible enough to allow lawyers to quickly and easily create impressive visuals to use in a courtroom, either to project and emphasize exhibits, or to emphasize key points made in oral arguments. Most lawyers already own the software as part of the Microsoft Office suite that they use daily as they run Word, Excel, and Outlook. The hardware is almost equally accessible. Most lawyers either have or can borrow a laptop computer. Similarly, most law firms have a projector and screen and, if not, they can be rented inexpensively or purchased in many cases for a onetime investment of less than $1,000.00. Several books are available to help. Lawyers use these tools to create polished and impressive (and persuasive) visuals, including Cliff Atkinson’s Beyond Bullet Points, Jerry Weissman’s Presenting to Win, Christopher Ritter’s Creating Winning Trial Strategies and Graphics, and Slide:ology by Nancy Duarte.

In the area of courtroom demeanor, the solution is equally achievable. Contrary to popular belief, judges and juries do not expect (or want) lawyers to be blow hards or bullies. Rather, studies show that jurors sympathize with witnesses who are badgered and are put off by arrogant and pretentious trial lawyers. What they want you to show, however, is sincere passion for your client’s case and poised, polished presentation. Standing at counsel table and reading your examination questions or your closing argument in a monotone from your legal pad places you in a stark (and unfavorable) contrast from the actors and actresses they see going through the same motions in the movies, and from the celebrity lawyers whose cases are covered on the news.

Even in an era where jurors have seen hundreds of fictional closing arguments and cross-examinations, their expectations of how a lawyer should act in a courtroom will be met by a well-dressed and groomed (but not flashy) lawyer who appears prepared, organized, and confident, who advocates passionately and confidently (but not obnoxiously) for his or her client’s cause.

Here, like in most aspects of litigation, there is no substitute for simple preparation. A well-prepared lawyer will naturally be confident-and therefore appear confident-as he or she presents a client’s case. Argue with passion and conviction, but don’t pound the table theatrically or turn on the crocodile tears. You won’t be perceived as a movie star, but rather as a bad actor. Put another way, don’t bury your emotions-they can be a powerful tool for communicating your client’s message. But at the same time, don’t manufacture emotions because you think that’s what your audience wants to see. That insincerity will backfire every time.

Movie stars and famous lawyers with unlimited budgets have certainly made it harder for the rest of us to look good in comparison. But with some planning it’s still possible to manage your client’s expectations of what a lawsuit looks like and how a trial lawyer acts so that you won’t fall short in your client’s eyes when your case takes longer than 44 minutes (not counting commercials) to get from first meeting to trial. At the same time, with just a little work you can put on a case that’s (almost) worthy of a Hollywood production without compromising your client’s interests or blowing your litigation budget.

Break a leg!

I want to express our appreciation to Tony Paganelli for his candid advice on real-life trial work in today’s media world. Perhaps you’re interested in the CLE presentation where Mr. Paganelli brings a sharper image to these pointers. There are opportunities for you to hear his presentation from the Federal Civil Practice seminar either as a Video Replay seminar at various locations around the state or as an On Demand seminar, available anywhere, anytime.

_________________________________________________________________________________

About our Law Tips faculty participant:
Tony Paganelli is the principal of the Paganelli Law Group, Indianapolis. Before leaving to found his own law firm in 2013, Tony was a litigation partner for several years with one of the largest law firms in the United States. Tony is an experienced trial lawyer with nearly 20 years of experience representing people and companies of all sizes in courtrooms across the United States. He also advises businesses on a wide range of issues, including employee relations, contracts and transactions, regulatory compliance, and intellectual property issues.

About our Law Tips blogger:
Nancy Hurley has long-standing connections with Indiana lawyers. She was formerly a member of the ISBA and IBF staffs for over 30 years. Nancy’s latest lifestyle venture is with ICLEF. We are utilizing her exceptional writing and interviewing skills while exploring how her Indiana-lawyer background fits with ICLEF’s needs. When she isn’t ferreting out new topics for Law Tips, her work can be found in our Speaker Spotlight blogs, postings on the ICLEF Facebook and Twitter pages, and other places her legal experience lends itself.

Thank you for reading Law Tips. You may subscribe to this weekly blog through the RSS link at the top of this page.  Also, you are encouraged to comment below or email Nancy. She welcomes your input as she continues to sift through the treasure trove of knowledge of our CLE faculty to share with you.

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Law Blogs, Law Tips0 Comments

Law Tips: Trying Cases in a World of Media Overload: “Why Can’t You Be More Like Tom Cruise or Johnnie Cochran?”

What’s a good way for a lawyer to address the client who complains that she is being too nice to the opposing counsel?   Is there any way to explain the process of litigation before possible disappointments develop? Our faculty participant, Tony Paganelli, Paganelli Law Group, Indianapolis, discusses these and other related issues that are growing more common in his CLE presentation: “Trying Cases in a World of Media Overload.” He has agreed to share with Law Tips readers a sampling of his insights from over 20 years as a trial lawyer:

More often than not, lawyering is the art of managing expectations-those of your clients and those of the courts. Because much of what we do as lawyers goes on behind the scenes, our clients only real glimpses into what we do every day comes from meetings, conference calls, depositions, and increasingly infrequent court appearances where clients actually attend in person. In our age of 24/7 television and always-on internet, the popular media replaces meaningful interaction between attorney and client to form the world’s perception of what we do and how we do it. This is not a good thing. Almost universally, the public’s perception of dispute resolution, as presented by movies, television shows, and the media, is one of a system that is much faster, flashier, and more simplistic than what really goes on in a lawyer’s day-to-day practice of law. This makes lawyers’ lives much more difficult.

For example, depending on the type of case and the venue, lawsuits can take from one to three years to make their way through the court system. During this period, months often go by with little or no activity. Under normal circumstances, clients would have a difficult time understanding this “hurry up and wait” system of project management, but when they see cases proceeding from start to finish in the course of a two-hour movie, or even a sixty-minute television show (with commercials!), they sometimes blame their lawyers for mismanagement, procrastination, laziness, or all of the above.

Similarly, the trials the public sees on the news and in movies apparently involve parties with infinite litigation budgets, especially when it comes to expert witnesses and courtroom presentation tools. After the O.J. Simpson trial, which much of America watched on television in real-time, people came to expect reconstruction videos, computer animation, and endless parades of forensic expert witnesses. What the public does not see are the bills that come afterward. Estimates place the fees incurred by Mr. Simpson in his case almost 20 years ago at well over $10 million.

The public also expects cases to resolve in dramatic courtroom clashes as lawsuits move quickly toward a speedy trial. This is to be expected-cross examination makes for much more dramatic television than a 10-hour long mediation, even though well over 90 percent of lawsuits are resolved by settlement or pre-trial motion, rather than trial. News accounts only cover settlements to the extent that they are announced in press releases or news conferences that are often ignored. The riveting news coverage is in the form of courtroom testimony, and even that is highly edited to focus only on the 30 seconds of dramatic sound-bite each day in ten hours of otherwise undramatic testimony.

The result for real-world litigants is an anticlimax: parties sometimes feel they have been denied their “day in court” or, worse, that their lawyer has “sold them out” by encouraging them to take a quick settlement instead of putting in the work needed to try a case. Similarly, clients accustomed to the “lawyer as gladiator” image presented in movies and television shows are unimpressed by (and sometimes suspicious of) lawyers they perceive as being too friendly with their opposing counsel, and by depositions or cross-examinations that seem tedious, weak, and emotionless.

The Solutions: Managing Your Clients’ Expectations
As in many things, the magic bullet to bridge the expectations gap between fiction and reality is communication. Lawyers should talk with their clients early and often about what should be expected in the course of a lawsuit. The three most important areas in which to set and manage client expectations are time, money, and resolution.

First, at the outset of a lawsuit lawyers should help clients understand how cases make their way through the courts to resolution, and that lawsuits are resolved by settlements an overwhelming majority of the time. At the same time, lawyers should explain that lawsuits typically proceed in fits and starts, punctuated by periods of intense activity followed by lulls that can last months. One effective tool to help lawyers communicate this aspect of litigation to clients, and also to help lawyers manage their cases, is the simple timeline. A printed timeline, provided to a client at the beginning of a case, can be a powerful tool for managing clients’ expectations and conditioning them to the fact that lawsuits are marathons, not sprints. The timeline can also serve as an agenda for periodic status update meetings and calls.

Second, another part of a lawyer’s case management job is to make sure his or her clients understand that everything in a lawsuit costs money. From expert witnesses to jury consultants to accident reconstructionists, the people who add the “sizzle” to a lawyer’s trial presentation are expensive. Any budget that a lawyer prepares for a client must account for these costs and explain to the client that they are not included in the lawyer’s fee, if that is the case. Again, if you can project expenses onto the timeline, your client can see not just how much money the case will cost, but also when (and why) fees and costs will be incurred.

Finally, clients must understand that lawyers are not gladiators. As all good lawyers know, yelling and bullying are seldom the most effective tools for advocacy. However, this may be the most difficult misperception to overcome but the concept of “you’ll be hearing from my lawyer!” is so deeply ingrained into our collective psyche. People expect, and pay, their lawyers to fight their battles for them, so they want to see at least a little bit of hand-to-hand combat on their behalf.

Make no mistake, there is a time and a place for firm, aggressive conduct. The reluctant, dishonest witness must be dealt with and the foot-dragging opposing counsel must be held to task. A lawyer arguing his or her client’s case in a courtroom should not merely read notes from a legal pad, but should plead the client’s case with appropriate passion and zeal. But there is no place in litigation for belligerence, bullying, or needless antagonism. Indeed, judges are becoming increasingly unforgiving of such conduct, insisting on civility from all counsel and litigants.

So how does the lawyer explain himself to the client who complains that he is being too nice to the opposing counsel? How does she respond when the client asks why she didn’t get tougher in the deposition? Again, the answer comes from communicating with your client in advance and setting reasonable client expectations. For example, if you worry that your client will perceive you as weak if you agree to routine continuances and extensions of deadlines, during your first discussion of the lawsuit timeline you can explain that it is typical for both sides (and the court) to need more time to respond to a request or a motion, and that events are often rescheduled through no sinister motive, but rather just because the process of a lawsuit is dynamic. Evidence gets discovered, motions get filed, and other things happen that can’t be predicted in advance. Explain that you might need a continuance or extension yourself at some point, and objecting to the other side’s request may haunt you later when you need the same courtesy.

Moreover, you can explain to your client that objecting to routine and reasonable requests to adjust the timeline will be counterproductive because they will likely be granted over your objection, and you will look petty and unreasonable to the judge for making the objection.

By the same token, explaining to your client in advance, for example, that depositions are fact-finding interviews, and not opportunities to embarrass or belittle opposing witnesses, might help your client understand a seemingly meek questioning technique. A client who knows in advance that the goal of a deposition is to put a witness at ease and encourage him to talk will be satisfied with something less than an inquisition.

Are your client communication methods similar to these? Are you now thinking of a few improvements? Hopefully, this review had a tip or two to help you in the future. I appreciate Tony Paganelli sharing his experience on managing clients’ expectations. And, there’s more!   His timely advice continues next week here on Law Tips when he steps into “Adapting to the Audience’s Expectations.” Come back to see what he has to say about how to create a polished and sophisticated impression without breaking the bank or distracting from the message.

Meanwhile, there are opportunities for you to hear Mr. Paganelli’s presentation from the Federal Civil Practice seminar either as a Video Replay seminar at various locations around the state or as an On Demand seminar, available anywhere, anytime.

_________________________________________________________________________________

About our Law Tips faculty participant:
Tony Paganelli is the principal of the Paganelli Law Group, Indianapolis. Before leaving to found his own law firm in 2013, Tony was a litigation partner for several years with one of the largest law firms in the United States. Tony is an experienced trial lawyer with nearly 20 years of experience representing people and companies of all sizes in courtrooms across the United States. He also advises businesses on a wide range of issues, including employee relations, contracts and transactions, regulatory compliance, and intellectual property issues.

About our Law Tips blogger:
Nancy Hurley has long-standing connections with Indiana lawyers. She was formerly a member of the ISBA and IBF staffs for over 30 years. Nancy’s latest lifestyle venture is with ICLEF. We are utilizing her exceptional writing and interviewing skills while exploring how her Indiana-lawyer background fits with ICLEF’s needs. When she isn’t ferreting out new topics for Law Tips, her work can be found in our Speaker Spotlight blogs, postings on the ICLEF Facebook and Twitter pages, and other places her legal experience lends itself.

Thank you for reading Law Tips. You may subscribe to this weekly blog through the RSS link at the top of this page.  Also, you are encouraged to comment below or email Nancy. She welcomes your input as she continues to sift through the treasure trove of knowledge of our CLE faculty to share with you.

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Law Blogs, Law Tips0 Comments