Wisconsin Business and Commercial Litigation

This weekend, beginning today, in fact, my firm holds its annual All Attorney Meeting in Chicago.  Because our 500 or so lawyers are spread across the country in offices stretching from Miami to Portland and San Diego to New York, this weekend is often our only chance to see many of our partners in person. 

This meeting always reminds me of a few things.  First, I am truly blessed to be part of such a diverse and widespread firm.  It greatly benefits my clients by providing instant access to quality counsel in almost every jurisdiction in this country.  It benefits me in that I have nearly unlimited resources and feet on the ground in just about anyplace anything will happen to a client of mine.

Second, I believe this firm contains more first-chair trial lawyers per square foot than any other firm in the county.  Our firm started with trial lawyers, and continues the tradition to this day.  I am proud to be associated with such an accomplished and successful group of professionals.  I don’t think you can find a deeper pool of trial talent than we have available.  Taking the Milwaukee office as a microcosm of the firm at large, out of 15 lawyers, at least 11 have first-chaired more than a handful of cases to verdict. 

Finally, I am thrilled that our firm culture is one that permits all of us to come together and enjoy one another’s company.  As our chairman often says, these aren’t just great lawyers, they’re great people.  I have never been in a firm that has a better sense of community and collegiality than this one.  And that is, most importantly, reflected in the teamwork we offer to our clients and the results that we obtain for them.

I always look forward to this weekend, and this year is no exception.

You know, every time I get into court, I learn something new, or at least have a lesson reinforced.  I tried a case last week in federal court, and it became more clear to me than ever that brevity is crucial.  Judges and juries have little patience for repetitive questioning, cumulative evidence, and the investigation of irrelevant issues.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that judges (who often profess to want things done quickly and cleanly, but then refuse to limit irrelevant or cumulative evidence) will take the risk of preventing a particular piece of evidence.   But at the very least, less is more, and the more extraneous baggage can be pared from what’s presented, the better.

The corollaries to this are two.  First, preparation is crucial.  The time spent in considering the elements of the claim and the specific evidence required to prove (or nullify) those elements is always well spent.  As a young lawyer, my rule of thumb was that when I was more exhausted than scared, I was ready for trial.  Since then, I’ve luckily gained more insight into how much is enough, and how to know when I’m there. 

The second corollary is to trust your instincts.  Trials, like the rest of the law, are art, not science.  You should feel when enough is enough, and you should understand what it is you need to prove, and what evidence will get you there.  The more time you spend considering such things, the more you’ll understand exactly what testimony and evidence you need. 

I love what I do — trials are one of the best parts of this job.  If anyone who reads this has comments, I’d love to hear how you prepare, and what your thoughts are on deciding what evidence you have to use, and what you can leave out.