Related Articles

Images

Gathering Ponders Lincoln’s Lawyering Lessons

By ANNE-VICTORIA CANEVERI

“Honesty builds reputation; A good reputation, in turn, attracts clients.”

— Abraham Lincoln

Apparently, many among the Connecticut bench and bar are still touched by the life of Abraham Lincoln, in this the 200th anniversary year of his birth.

On Oct. 31, the New Haven County Bar Association, in collaboration with the Connecticut Bar Association and state Judicial Branch, presented a symposium on the often dry topic of professionalism. Only this gathering was attended not just by the normal handful of bar activists. More than 250 people participated in the program, hooked by the angle of how Lincoln’s professional life can inform their own. Somehow having the still large-looming figure of Lincoln telling us to get along, be honest, be brief, is palatable, if not downright intriguing.

Louis Pepe, chair of the CBA Standing Committee on Professionalism, called it the largest turnout ever for such a symposium. To accommodate the overwhelming response, the New Haven Superior Courthouse was shut down for the morning session. Twenty-seven panelists, including a variety of lawyers and judges, took over the courtrooms to moderate small group discussions of video vignettes prepared and produced by the Atlanta Bar Association portraying different issues Lincoln faced in his life as a lawyer.

Yes, Atlanta, Ga., was heralding Lincoln. Odder still was that in the videos Lincoln’s voice was portrayed with a definite southern accent. But more important was that his life spurred candid discussions between judges and lawyers swapping war stories and developing strategies for how best to handle ethical quagmires.

The take-home was that the Connecticut bar is a small world with a long memory and attorneys need to jealously guard their reputations for honesty and integrity. One of the thorny issues that generated much discussion was how to deal with dishonest or unscrupulous opposing counsel. Lincoln’s magnanimity and ability to find common ground with opponents were the ideal, as shown by a letter he once wrote apologizing to opposing counsel after a heated exchange, much like sports opponents shaking hands after a good match. Superior Court Judge Earl Richards, and other judges on hand, asserted that he wanted no part of ruling on “sandbox disputes” which are distracting from the real matter at hand.

One suggestion is for an attorney to first assume that inappropriate conduct by opposing counsel is simply a mistake and to then ask an erring opponent if you understood them correctly. If that’s the case, advise the opposing counsel why the mistake should be corrected and give them an opportunity to correct it. Appellate Court Judges Lubbie Harper Jr. and F. Herbert Gruendel noted that if a lawyer’s conduct is particularly troublesome, judges have taken such steps as calling more senior counsel in firms privately to report on the problem.

Judge Gruendel read remarks prepared by Judge Alexandra DiPentima (who could not attend due to the death of her father) which asked whether civility and restraint have “gone the way of the horse and buggy?” DiPentima, a member of the CBA Standing Committee on Professionalism, was among those who recently met with representatives of Connecticut law schools to discuss the teaching of professionalism and how the bench and bar can help.

Connecticut Chief Justice Chase Rogers noted that the same standards of professionalism and civility apply to those on the bench. Rogers, addressing the group via video, also echoed Lincoln’s message that litigation should be discouraged. Lincoln is quoted as stating: “Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often the real loser—in fees, expenses and waste of time. As a peacemaker, the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough.”

Also noteworthy was the call for brevity and clarity. The ideal presented, of course, was the 272-word Gettysburg Address. The video presentation noted how Lincoln’s three-minute speech trumped the prior and now little remembered two-hour oration given by another politician, Edward Everett of Massachusetts. Panel judges expressed a strong preference for one or two good arguments rather than five or six weak ones, and noted that weak arguments tend to undermine the stronger ones.

As Lincoln stated: “Now, remember, in the law, it is generally good policy never to argue what you need not, lest you oblige yourself to prove what you cannot.”•