Rogers & Tartaro Business Litigation Blog : New York and Connecticut Business Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : Rogers & Tartaro Law Firm : Commercial Litigation : Westchester County NY, Fairfield County CT

A recent Law.com post reported on a survey indicating that news reporters who cover litigation say that lawyers are not particularly helpful when it comes to helping reporters understand the core issues in a case.

Before continuing, I have to confess to a pet peeve about over-reliance on surveys of dubious value. Cable news shows, for example, get me going when they cite their “informal” viewer polls, and admit to a lack of “scientific” validity but go on to discuss the conclusions as if they are entirely valid. Grrrr.

Nonetheless, my hunch is there is some validity to the notion that lawyers and reporters may not speak the same language when identifying or talking about “core” issues in a case.

But, here’s my problem: the second paragraph of the Law.com post says outright that the survey may not be “bankable,” which I interpret to mean “reliable.” Then, by training, I have to think like a lawyer. If the only evidence - - the survey - - is not reliable, there is no reliable evidence to support the proposition that lawyers are unhelpful to reporters in identifying core issue in litigation. If there is no reliable evidence supporting that proposition, then why is there an article discussing it?

Here’s another problem. Long ago I learned that in sampling, the problem is not the size (or lack of size) of the sample but the representative nature (or lack thereof) of the sample. Thus, if the only problem is that the sample is small, the survey may be reliable after all. But, we may never know because all we know is that the response rate was low.

I suspect that we’re left with the intuitive notion that some lawyers may not be helpful to reporters. I also suspect that there’s an easy solution; it’s just a matter of finding the right lawyer to ask.

In this blog, we try to be helpful to all our readers, especially if they are not lawyers, in understanding a variety of legal issues within our primary areas of practice. Reporters (or all readers) are invited to comment to let us know how we’re doing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Attorney Rush Nigut was inspired to write in his blog about Y.E. Yang’s recent victory over Tiger Woods in the PGA Championship. Nigut compared the sporting match to a trial, correctly stating that in both cases, there is no guaranteed outcome.

He makes an excellent point; one with which we are familiar in our own practice, for many of our clients are considered the “underdog.” We, too, are often underrated by our opposition, but are often motivated even more by these situations. (And we make it a practice never to underrate our opposition.)

In 2007 the University of South Florida did a comprehensive study on “The Appeal of the Underdog.” The researchers found that for various reasons, most people do, in fact, sympathize with the perceived underdog.

As trial lawyers, it’s very important for us to keep that in mind.

However, there is a flip side, too. While it takes courage to confront a case when you’re the underdog, because of the inherent uncertainty of trials, we encourage reasonable settlements whenever we can.  Regardless of preparation or perception, in uncontrolled circumstances (courses or courts), you never know which way the ball is going to roll. 

Photo:  Tiger Woods, courtesy Wikimedia

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Legal Blog Watch recently posted a story about a judge who admonished an attorney for his client’s appearance in court. Surprisingly, this happens more often than one may think.

In fact, a fellow attorney blogged about a motion recently filed in Florida, alleging that a trial lawyer is wearing beat up shoes to gain sympathy with juries: “Upon reasonable belief, Plaintiff believes that [name] wears these shoes as a ruse to impress the jury and make them believe that [he] is humble and simple without sophistication."

Admittedly, human nature often wins the battle with common sense, and subliminal perceptions may play a role in deliberations. As we know, attire can support or interfere with the message one is trying to get across to a judge or jury.  At a minimum, as a distraction (flashy drawing away attention); at worst contradicting (nervous adjustment contradicts attempts to appear truthful). So, following are some additional common sense dressing tips we’ve found helpful for court appearances:

Choose: comfortable clothing (adjusting your clothing may make you appear nervous and suspicious), conservative suits in modest colors.

Avoid: trendy clothing, expensive, excessive or flashy jewelry  (especially if one is looking for a financial settlement), loud colors , revealing outfits, inappropriate shoes. Do not wear a lot of perfume or cologne.

In general, dress as nicely as you can on your budget, and most importantly, make sure your client leaves home anything that can be perceived as a potential threat (chains, Swiss army knives, etc).

At one time we would have said the issue is respect for the law and the institution of the courts. These days, that is not a compelling argument. However - a big however – interference with a successful outcome is always a compelling argument.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We’ve mentioned before that the Probate Court system in Connecticut faces severe financial problems. To avoid facing the possibility of a $5 million deficit in 2011, the state has passed a law reducing the number of probate courts in Connecticut from 117 to 50 or fewer.

According to the Ridgefield Press, Ridgefield’s probate court will likely be joined with those of Redding, Bethel and Newtown, serving about 78,000 people.

What does this mean for local residents and attorneys? A lot more driving. Since we also practice in New York, we’re accustomed to this. We currently have active cases in New York (downtown Manhattan), Queens (Jamaica), Rockland (New Town) and Westchester (White Plains) Counties, not to mention the Towns of Ridgefield, Madison, and Westbrook in CT.

However, we recognize that many Probate cases are small, and that individuals may be handling them without attorneys. It makes sense to locate regional courts so that getting to them does not become a burden.  The Ridgefield Press reports that Ridgefield Probate Judge Joseph Egan and Ridgefield First Selectman Rudy Marconi are concerned that Newtown is pushing to host the court offices for the four towns.  Yet Danbury and Bethel are possible contenders for the site, too. 

In his Connecticut Law Blog, Ryan McKeen brings up some interesting questions, including the issue of whether or not new facilities will have to be built.

We'll buckle our seatbelts and prepare for a bumpy ride.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks