Related posts

• The civil litigation death penalty (5)
• That smouldering pile of rubble over there? (0)
• July 27 roundup (3)
• “South Carolina Supreme Court Brings Down the Hammer on Discovery Abuse” (1)
• “People want to find out what the other person is Googling” (0)

Related posts

• Labor law roundup (0)
• Great moments in deportation law (6)
• UK: “Evicted gipsies launch human rights claim” (0)
• U.K.: Great moments in international human rights law (0)
• U.K.: Great moments in international human rights (5)

Related posts

• Philadelphia courts attract forum-shoppers (2)
• October 2002 archives, part 2 (0)
• July 13 roundup (0)
• December 2001 archives, part 1 (1)
• Archived class action materials, pre-July 2003 (0)

Related posts

• The “pie chart that doesn’t want you to eat pie.” (4)
• Food law roundup (14)
• Food law roundup (0)
• Food and agriculture law roundup (8)
• February 25 roundup (5)

Related posts

• Why they call it discovery (0)
• White Coat’s lawsuit story, cont’d (0)
• We’re all lawyers. We don’t have to answer questions. (2)
• Update: Larry Klayman and respectability (0)
• Update: Hollins v. Jordan (1)

The Federalist Society has posted numerous videos from its recent National Lawyers’ Convention, including sessions on the aggressive regulatory stance of today’s Environmental Protection Agency, the constitutionality of Obamacare, anonymity and the First Amendment in media and campaign-regulation law, NYU’s Richard Epstein debating Yale’s Bill Eskridge on the court battle over California’s Prop 8, recusal and campaign rules for judges, Dodd-Frank, and the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez case on accreditation of student groups, among other topics. And civil procedure/Iqbal-Twombly buffs may be interested in a luncheon panel held just yesterday in D.C. (I was in the audience) in which four law professors (Don Elliott of Yale, Martin Redish and Ronald Allen of Northwestern, and Rick Esenberg of Marquette) outlined ideas for reforming the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to reduce discovery costs and improve screening of cases in the earliest stages of filing.

The video above is of the Society’s 10th annual Barbara Olson Memorial Lecture, in which Second Circuit Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs provocatively criticizes legal academia and other precincts of influential legal thinking for misunderstanding the role of the military and its relation to the law.

Related posts

• Speaking at several law schools in 2010 (1)
• Speaking at Columbia Law tomorrow (1)
• October 23 roundup (0)
• November 21 roundup (0)
• Microblog 2008-11-02 (0)

Related posts

• Why they call it discovery (0)
• How Joe Jamail conducts a deposition (6)
• Annals of incivility (0)
• “Why Do Lawyers Mouth Clients’ Ridiculous Alibis?” (5)
• “My client is being framed”, cont’d (2)

If I was an elementary school teacher instead of a judge I would require both counsel to write the following clearly established legal rules on a blackboard 500 times:

I will not make speaking, coaching, suggestive objections which violate Rule 30(c)(2). I am an experienced lawyer and know that objections must be concise, non-argumentative and non-suggestive. I understand that the purpose of a deposition is to find out what the witness thinks, saw, heard or did. I know that lawyers are not supposed to coach or change the witness’s own words to form a legally convenient record. I know I am prohibited from frustrating or impeding the fair examination of a deponent during the deposition. I know that constant objections and unnecessary remarks are unwarranted and frustrate opposing counsel’s right to fair examination. I know that speaking objections such as “if you remember,” “if you know,” “don’t guess,” “you’ve answered the question,” and “do you understand the question” are designed to coach the witness and are improper. I also know that counsel’s interjection that he or she does not understand the question is not a proper objection, and that if a witness needs clarification of a question, the witness may ask for the clarification.

[Order in Mazzeo v. Gibbons et al., Trial Ad Notes via Day on Torts]

Related posts

• Why they call it discovery (0)
• White Coat’s lawsuit story, cont’d (0)
• What is a photocopier? (32)
• We’re all lawyers. We don’t have to answer questions. (2)
• The civil litigation death penalty (5)

Related posts

• The civil litigation death penalty (5)
• November 4 roundup (8)
• 75 years of hospital records (1)
• Why they call it discovery (0)
• Who arranged those leniency letters, anyway? (2)

Related posts

• Zwebner lawsuits on Internet posts (2)
• Fox’s thin pelt (1)
• Archived media law & free speech items, pre-July 2003 (0)
• What Elizabeth Wurtzel tells us about the XOXOHTH lawsuit (3)
• Wal-Mart vs. Kevin Brancato (0)