· S P E C I A L · F E A T U R E ·
A Brief on Being Brief
· an excerpt from the new book ·
by Keith Evans
INTRODUCTION
The excerpt, below, is from Common Sense Rules of Advocacy
for Lawyers, by Keith Evans. It's pulled from four
sections of the book: The Dimensions of Advocacy, Advocacy
as Theater, Cross-Examination, and Written Advocacy. It is
both entertaining and... brief.
The author, Keith Evans, is the de Tocqueville of advocacy:
a visitor who appreciates the beauty of American jurisprudence. He studied law at Cambridge, starting as a
Barrister in 1963, and continuing as a trial lawyer in
California from 1975 to 1996. A distinguished professor of
trial advocacy in both the U.S. and the U.K., Evans retired
in 1998.
More information about the book Common Sense Rules of Advocacy
for Lawyers -- and author Keith Evans -- follows
the excerpt. Enjoy!
A Brief on Being Brief
by Keith Evans
Dimensions of Advocacy
The Fourth Dimension: Time
Time. Your time. My time. It's expensive stuff. Some of
you, perhaps most of you, measure your profitability by
time. Billable hours mean time. Time to the lawyer can be
enemy or paymaster. Time is a demanding mistress, a jealous
lover, a jailer, a slave driver.
It can also be elastic. Compare ten minutes making love
with ten minutes having a root canal fixed. And think of
how long drawn-out six hours in a jury box listening to
an incompetent, wasteful attorney can be. Most jurors have
better things to do with their time. We don't usually pay
them enough to park their car, and they are giving their
time as a public duty. They have to rush around outside
court hours getting everything done just so they can sit
there and listen to you, you, hour after hour, day after
day, perhaps even week after week.
And what about the judge? Do you know how much she has
waiting to be done, on the other side of the corridor? Do
you know how much paper she has to look at just to stay
abreast of the workload?
Time is the "fourth dimension" in which you operate as a
trial lawyer, and if you forget it, if you forget it for
one moment of your factfinder's precious time, look out! If
you ever give them cause to feel that you are wasting their
time, they will resent you for it, and if you get your
factfinder feeling resentful about you, you are a good
halfway to losing your case. This is far more important
than most lawyers realize.
It's worse than that. It's not just that the inexperienced
attorney hasn't grasped the problems of the Fourth
Dimension. There is an opposite pressure that works on us
and we usually give way before it. It's a two-pronged
thing.
FIRST PRONG: You've got a client. The client is almost
certainly in court, listening intently to everything. You
feel this huge obligation to make sure she feels she is
getting her money's worth. You have this strong conviction
that you ought to be giving her so many questions in cross-
examination, so many square feet of transcript. If you
don't do this, isn't she going to feel that you didn't do
your best for her, that you sold her short, that you let
her down?
Sure. She may indeed. And she would be as wrong as you
were. This is something you must talk to her about in
advance. This is part of the private advocacy that goes
on between attorney and client. You've got to explain it,
make her understand the Fourth Dimension, make her
appreciate that brevity is your secret weapon. When she
sees the quality of attention you are getting from your
factfinder, she'll stop worrying about it, but, yes, you do
have a duty to explain all this to your client in advance.
SECOND PRONG: The other kind of pressure that will push you
into wasting time is your own insecurity. You'll be
convinced that you didn't make yourself clear enough,
didn't say it forcefully enough, didn't get your point
across adequately. And you will repeat yourself. It's so
understandable, this fear, this anxiety. We've all suffered
from it and know the pressure. Don't yield to it.
Advocacy as Theater
Rule #28: Be Brief
Do not use up a minute more of your factfinder's time than
is absolutely necessary. It works. It works incredibly
well. You doubt this? I doubted it. We all doubt it. The
practical rule, Be Brief, sounds like an encouragement to
chicken out, not to do your best for the client, not to do
a thorough job. It's not so.
Being brief requires planning, real preparation, intensely
concentrated thinking. Covering all the points you need to
cover without a single wasted word, making the impact you
need to make as economically as you possible can, is
anything but easy. Getting ready to do this successfully
can be hard labor. But it works and I'll demonstrate to you
why it works.
Imagine yourself sitting on a jury. The trial lawyer stands
up and does his opening. He tells you a story, a story
that's easy to follow and that engages your interest. You
can see very clearly why the case had to come to court.
He's made you feel a wrong has been suffered that needs to
be righted. But suddenly he's stopped. Just when you were
comfortably settling in to the unexpectedly enjoyable
business of listening to this interesting guy -- he's done.
He has stopped before you've had enough. He followed the
rule of all good entertainment: he left you wanting more.
You are now in a state of looking forward to the next time
that guy gets to his feet. When he does, he will have your
total attention. But he does it again. Even before you
settle in to really enjoying it, he's finished. And he does
it again the time after that. He does it all the way
through the trial. Then you come to his final summation and
instead of being so brief, this time he gives you a little
more. And even a little bit more is so gratifying.
By working the Brevity Rule in harness with the Tell Them a
Story Rule (Rule 22) in harness with the Avoid Detail Rule
(Rule 26), this advocate has you sitting in rapt attention
every time he opens his mouth. When you see it done
properly, it's a delight to behold, and the contrast with
the ordinary, run-of-the-mill advocate is amazing.
Cross-Examination
Rule #28 Again: Be as Brief as You Can Be
There is a special reason for this rule in cross-
examination, quite apart from your constant duty to save
your factfinder's time. Almost all witnesses get more
confident and more effective the longer you cross-examine
them. Why is this?
When you stand up to cross-examine, the witness is almost
bound to be wary of you. At this point, you have an
enormous advantage: he doesn't know how much you know. If
he has been slanting his evidence, especially if he's been
telling lies, he is afraid of you and of what you might
have up your sleeve.
During the first five minutes, he is assessing the
situation, estimating how dangerous you are. It's a rare
witness who starts taking liberties with you at the outset.
But the longer you go on without hurting him, the more
confident he's going to get. The more confident he gets,
the less easy he is to control.
You may be intending to lull him into a sense of
confidence. It's useful to do this sometimes. But if that
is not what you're trying to do, you should never let it
happen. If you can get everything done with a witness
during those first few minutes, so much the better. If you
need longer, if it's one of those cross-examinations that
can't be done quickly, make sure you use those first
minutes to convince him that he dare not relax. All these
things are encompassed by the Be Brief Rule.
Written Advocacy:
Rule #99: There's No Rule of Court Which Requires Your
Document to Be of a Minimum Length
It's the same all the way through advocacy: brevity works
wonders. If you believe nothing else you have read in this
book, believe this.
Brevity is such a scarce commodity, now as over the
centuries. Listen to one of the greatest of our
predecessors, an attorney who used to spellbind the juries
and whose economic use of English is still an example to us
all, but who on this occasion was suffering at the hands of
the wordy and the unfocused. Abraham Lincoln, reading a
report of a Congressional committee on a new gun, raised
his weary head and exclaimed, "I should want a new lease of
life to read this through! Why can't an investigating
committee show a grain of common sense? If I send a man to
buy a horse for me, I expect him to tell me that horse's
points -- not how many hairs he has in his tail!"
Why can't an attorney show a grain of common sense, and
regard it as a point of professional honor to be as brief
as possible? We have already turned up a number of reasons
-- the sheer weight of tradition and convention, the
occasional need for the precision of the engineer, the
badge-language we are tempted to flaunt -- but there is
another reason, a much more sinister one, and it is this.
Churning out boilerplate makes money.
A battalion of associates busily producing needless
verbiage not only pays the rent, it makes a handsome
profit.
I recently received a 72-page document. It was an answer to
some interrogatories in a wrongful termination case. Every
single interrogatory had first been objected to, then
answered briefly. The objection occupied seven lines, and
the identical seven lines had been reproduced, over and
over again, in respect of every single request.
It was wearisome reading. It involved trudging from page to
page, wading through repetitious junk to find the meat of
the response. Three words were all we needed: "The same
objection." Everyone would have understood and not one of
us would have complained about the missing seven lines.
Two-thirds of the paper would have been saved.
And it was slightly sickening to reflect that this cynical
waste of paper, time, and effort is how our profession
operates. Those answers to interrogatories were absolutely
typical: the generating of useless language is the norm. It
pays the rent.
That pleading came from a law firm that enjoys the highest
reputation. All their other pleadings have been the same.
When they took my client's deposition, they spun it out
over nine days.
We all know what I'm talking about. This shameless behavior
is rampant in the legal profession. And it's not only done
to make money: there's a grubbier motive some of the time.
It is a recognized strategy, these days, to paper your
opponent to death. Drown him. Use up his resources. Wage a
war of attrition. Use the financial muscle of your client
to drive your opponent into the ground. Beat him, not on
the justice of the case, or on the right interpretation of
law and fact, but by superior wealth.
There are hordes of American attorneys willing to sell
themselves as mercenaries in this shabby war.
Take another look in the mirror. Are you one of them?
If your client objects to paying as much for a slender
document as he would pay for half a pound of wasted paper,
use a little private advocacy. Remind him of what Mark
Twain wrote to Abigail -- when he apologized for the length
of his letter, explaining that it would have been much
shorter if he had had more time.
Remind your client, too, that the slow process of
distillation which makes brandy out of wine has its
counterpart in lawyering, and that ten words that move your
reader are worth more than ten thousand that don't. Show
him your product and explain the work that went into it.
Explain, as you explained before you began your trial, that
brevity is your secret weapon, but that it has to be worked
for with time and effort. Do this, and you're unlikely to
have trouble with your bill.
Brevity is not only a characteristic of effective advocacy.
In this profession of ours it is a badge of honor,
recognized as such by the oppressed judges and by every
thoughtful attorney. You want to be outstanding? Be brief.
About the Author
KEITH EVANS is a retired member of the Bars of both England
and California, a Scholar of the Middle Temple Inn of Court
in London, a member of Gray's Inn and a former Honorary
Master of San Diego's Louis M. Welsh American Inn of Court.
He studied law at Cambridge and started trial practice as
an English Barrister in 1963. From 1975 until 1996 he was
an active member of the California Bar.
He has handled several hundred jury trials and has
practiced in State and Federal Courts as well as, in
England, every court from the Old Bailey to the House of
Lords.
He was forced to retire (while, as he puts it, on a winning
run) after suffering a stroke in 1998.
The holder of an Outstanding Trial Lawyer award from the
San Diego Trial Lawyer's Association, he is also a
distinguished teacher of trial advocacy. His book on the
subject is the standard text in England and in many parts
of the British Commonwealth.
He has been a visiting professor at an American university
law school, has been on the faculty of the National
Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA), and he still teaches a
highly acclaimed full-day CLE seminar on trial-advocacy.
He practiced with several firms in the United States,
including Gray, Cary in San Diego and the aviation
litigation firm of Speiser, Krause & Cook in New York City
and Washington, DC.
About the Book
Common Sense Rules of Advocacy
for Lawyers
By Keith Evans
Published by TheCapitol.Net
ISBN 1-58733-005-9, 240 pages, hardcover, $35
Available from this site or directly from:
http://www.TheCapitol.net
Common Sense Rules of Advocacy
for Lawyers is the
classic guide to advocacy for trial lawyers. First
published in 1994, it has been hailed as the finest book of
its kind (see the endorsements, below). Keith Evans
explains the previously unwritten rules of advocacy, all
based on the premise that the purpose of a trial is not to
locate the truth -- that's what discovery is for -- but to
present allowable evidence in such a way as to gain a
favorable opinion from your factfinder (judge, jury,
arbitrator, boss, etc.).
Common Sense Rules superbly illustrates the premise that
advocacy is theater, explaining the nuances of persuasion
in a writing style more like a letter from a friend than a
legal text. The wisdom of this book, earned through
hundreds of trials, has extraordinary value, not only for
the trial lawyer, but for anyone involved in persuasion and
negotiation: mediators, facilitators, arbitrators, public
speakers -- anyone who's ever sweated through a public
presentation. Contents include:
- Introduction
- The Dimensions of Advocacy
- The Mandatory Rules of Advocacy
- Advocacy as Theater
- The Psychology of Advocacy
- The Examination of Witnesses
- Direct Examination
- Cross-Examination
- Re-Direct Examination
- The Final Argument
- Written Advocacy
- Advocacy in the Age of High Technology
- Conclusion
Common Sense Rules of Advocacy
for Lawyers contains tips
and rules that will make anyone a better advocate in 10
minutes a day. Keith Evans' commentary on courtroom
choreography will be treasured by veteran trial lawyers and
a godsend for those new to advocacy. This book is a perfect
gift for law school grads, a great "welcome aboard" present
for new associates, and an essential reference for law
schools and law firms.
Endorsements
"The book is a valuable review for the old timers and an
excellent primer for those who are starting the climb."
-- Jacob A. Stein
Stein, Mitchell & Mezines, Washington, DC
"The scope of the book -- everything from what to wear in
the courtroom to writing a trial brief -- is truly
impressive, yet the author maintains a tone that is
refreshingly readable... I wish I had had this book when I
was a young lawyer. I highly recommend it."
-- Karl Tegland, author, Courtroom Handbook on Washington Evidence
"Advocacy is an art as well as a skill, and Keith Evans
presents the rules of mastering that art in a very down to
earth manner. Filled with humor and eminently readable, his
book is a great introduction for the new lawyer and a
wonderful learning tool for the advocate with experience."
-- Sherman L. Cohn, Professor
Georgetown University Law Center
(first national President of American Inns of Court)
"This is a wonderful 'Bible' for the trial lawyer who wants
to win. If only we had had this in law school!"
-- Browne Greene
Greene, Broillet, Panish & Wheeler, Santa Monica, CA
"This is a remarkable compendium of useful advice presented
in a straightforward, entertaining manner. If new advocates
could have only one 'how to' book this would be it."
-- Roxanne Barton Conlin
Roxanne Conlin & Associates, Des Moines, IA
(first woman President of Association of
Trial Lawyers of America)
Copyright © 2004 by TheCapitol.Net, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Please feel free to duplicate or distribute this file as long as the contents are not changed and this copyright notice is intact. Thank you.