Evan Schaeffer's Legal Underground

An Amusing Trial Lawyer Anecdote?

The following is a true story that may or may not amuse, depending on your point of view.

One morning during a long trial, a young associate was delighted by the news that his boss, the lead trial lawyer, was going to allow him to cross-examine a defense witness after lunch. The cross-examination took place later that day without a hitch, and the young lawyer was justifiably proud.

That night at dinner, the young lawyer had all sorts of questions for his boss. He started with the first: "How come you let me do the cross-examination?"

The lead trial lawyer knew the answer, but wasn't sure how to respond. Finally, he decided that he should answer honestly, since it seemed like the truth might contain an important lesson for the young lawyer.

"I let you do the cross-examination," the lead lawyer said, "so that the jury would know just how unimportant that witness was."

According to the story, the young lawyer didn't take the explanation very well. He was so unhappy about it, in fact, that he was still recounting it years later to anyone who cared to listen, hoping that they'd be shocked, as he was, that his former boss, the lead trial lawyer, had so heartlessly duped him into playing the role of fool before the jury.

Most who heard his story, however, just laughed. 

Publication note: Originally published 9/2/05.

More Christmas Gifts for Lawyers

From Above the Law, it's the "2014 ATL Holiday Gift Guide." My only criticism is that it doesn't include this shockingly great Christmas gift for lawyers.

A Tip from the Machiavellian Lawyer

The Machiavellian Lawyer once said:

The young lawyer should never adopt the attitude of a know-it-all, even if he believes himself to be wiser than his peers. Rather, he should let others speak first. He should be content to watch, listen, and learn.

To gain a tactical advantage over an older opponent, the young lawyer should feign ignorance. “I don’t understand,” he should tell his older opponent. “Will you explain?”

The older lawyer, who is apt to be boastful and self-important, will be eager to show off his years of accumulated wisdom. In his boastfulness, he is likely to talk too much, giving away insights into his legal reasoning and justifications for his legal strategies.

Publication Note: Originally published 8/5/04.

Advice for Your Law Practice

"Represent only clients you like" -- a tip from J.D. Hull.

If only lawyering were so simple for all of us!

But it's a nice sentiment just the same . . .

A Shockingly Great Christmas Gift for Lawyers

It's my book How to Feed a Lawyer (and Other Irreverent Observations from the Legal Underground).

From the Amazon reviews--

I titled this "Hodgman for the Legal Set", because I think fans of one would enjoy the other ... It is our world, but at an oblique angle, where there is a wealth of strangeness and even sadness behind the expensive suits and crushing workloads and sacrificed personal lives.

I think that oblique angle allows Schaeffer to get into what is important to him without being pedantic: the nobility of the profession in theory and in practice. He has scorn for those who abuse the law, who treat it as a game, who use litigation tactics as a way to avoid the truth. It is never heavy-handed, but there is an anger there. ...

That's a long way for a book that is, at its heart, wildly funny. The reader is drawn through verbal mazes one step behind a winking guide. For a book that ostensibly teaches you what you need to know about dealing with lawyers, Schaeffer proves that the practice is as weird, unpredictable, and as idiosyncratic as the human race.

    --Cairo Brian

Evan Schaeffer is a unique lawyer for three reasons. He's extremely successful (rare in any profession) yet he also has a sense of humor (rare among lawyers) and is down to earth (even more rare).

In How to Feed a Lawyer, Evan offers insights and commentary about the legal system and through humorous essays, also shares what it's like being a lawyer. ... Evan's book is well-written, insightful, and worth reading.

--Crime & Federalism

Loved this book! Great fun to read and excellent writing by a Midwest lawyer who loves to poke fun at himself and his profession, while educating & enlightening his readers -- who are most likely -- though don't have to be -- fairly informed on the legal profession.

--Sarah Bernard**

The book isn't for lawyers who take themselves or their profession too seriously. We don't want them anyway!

The book is for BigLaw associates and partners; young lawyers, small-firm lawyers and solos; bitter lawyers and wannabe lawyers; most (but not all) of the judges I have known; lovers of H.L. Mencken, Mark Twain, or James Thurber; wannabe lawyers; and bright people of all types.

Happy reading!

**Sarah Bernard is my sister. Take this one with a grain of salt.

A Law Professor Shares The Top Arbitrary Number (Turns Out to be Six) of Things Not to Do on Law School Exams

By Bill Childs

I just completed my first semester teaching. I had no teaching or grading experience, except as a recipient of both services over a number of years. In other words: I am like the Baby Spice of the professorial world…though my hair doesn’t do that sassy dangling thing.

With that caveat, I submit six things not to do on law school exams (hereafter “TNTDOLSE”). While they are based on this first semester of exams, I expect they would be useful advice for most law school exams. I should also note that, even though these are identified as things not to do, I was actually quite impressed by my students’ efforts this semester.

Continue reading "A Law Professor Shares The Top Arbitrary Number (Turns Out to be Six) of Things Not to Do on Law School Exams," in the archives.

More About Depositions, Plus the Horror of My First

My article "Six Steps to Better Depositions" appeared at Lawyerist about a week ago.

It begins, "My first depositions were often frightening experiences."

It's a true statement. I've written about my frightening depositions here at Legal Underground.

Here's a good example: "The Horror of One Lawyer’s First Deposition."

The lawyer in that story is me--and it all really happened!

The Death of Vincent Van Gogh: This Just In

In 1890, Vincent van Gogh died at age 37. Was it suicide like we were all taught in school--or murder?

A few years ago, the murder theory was starting to become fashionable, until suddenly it wasn't anymore. See these two earlier posts: "Vincent Van Gogh . . . The Comic Novel Sacré Bleu Versus Van Gogh: The Life" and "Update: Vincent Van Gogh's Death Was a Suicide."

First suicide, then murder, then suicide.

Now the tide has turned again. In "NCIS: Provence: The Van Gogh Mystery," Vanity Fair weighs in with this breaking news--

For many decades, suicide was the unquestioned final chapter of Vincent van Gogh’s legend. But in their 2011 book, Pulitzer Prize-winning biographers Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith offered a far more plausible scenario—that Van Gogh was killed—only to find themselves under attack. Now, with the help of a leading forensic expert, the authors take their case a step further.

In the article, Naifeh and Smith describe how they took the evidence to "one of the world's leading handgun forensic experts," Dr. Vincent Di Maio, who concluded: "“It is my opinion that, in all medical probability, the wound incurred by Van Gogh was not self-inflicted. In other words, he did not shoot himself.”

I'm not taking sides in the debate. But I am taking notes. If nothing else, it gives me another chance to put a nice image on the blog.