How to Deconstruct the Spawn of Satan

My client finally got deposed 'and then some. I thought I had explained the deposition process well: I pointed out what a deposition was, how it worked, who would be there; I told my client to tell the truth, and not to answer questions that she didn't understand. I explained what objections I could make, and so forth. Well, I left out a little something that my client promptly pointed out after her deposition was taken '

Client: You didn't tell me that the opposing lawyer was the devil incarnate.

Me: Oh, he was a little rough on you, but, honestly, it was his deposition, and he gets a little leeway in asking his questions.

Client: A little leeway! He was a snotty, despicable spawn of Satan. And you just sat there. Why didn't you do something?

Me: In my business, you get accustomed to these cases of demonic possession. He was just trying to shake you up. It's all a game. You're taking this way too personally. He's just trying to get you off balance. Ignore him, and you'll feel better.
Client: Ignore him? Is that all the advice that you have? What can we do about him? Won't the judge do something? What about the State Bar of Texas? The FBI? He's a monster. What are you going to do about it?

Me: Hey, his client's deposition is coming up next week. I'll just be twice as ugly to him and his client then. How about that?
How do we explain the antics of opposing counsel to our clients? Sure, most lawyers are reasonably professional and act like they have some manners. As for some others I've encountered, I probably couldn't muster up a plausible explanation for their presence on earth. Like every lawyer of any tenure whatsoever, I have faced off with opposing counsel who severely tried my patience.
Any lawyer worth his or her salt can tell tales of opposing counsel who thought that the legal profession was his or her personal vehicle for reliving and avenging his or her childhood wrongs. It is a lot like what social workers call the 'cycle of child abuse.' Those who feel they were abused think they have a
personal privilege to abuse others. Naturally, it doesn't help matters that a lot of hyper-glandular people are attracted to the legal profession because it looks like the perfect job for bullying other people. Plus, it pays well.
Of course, the apologists for this sort of bad lawyering like to argue that 'the legal profession ain't no ice-cream social.' They also argue that the attorneys' objectionable behavior is 'zealous advocacy,' which is next to godliness in the pantheon of ethical requirements. Of course, there is no 'ethical requirement' that justifies name-calling, flouting the rules and frivolous filing of motions. It is simply a conceit that these lawyers rely on to transform their vices into supposed virtues.

How Do We Explain?

How do we explain the behavior of opposing counsel to our clients?
First, we lawyers have to have some objective understanding of our adversaries to decide whether some extended explanation to our clients is necessary. It is all too easy to characterize every opposing counsel as 'Satan's in-house counsel' when the reality is that most don't even come close. We can easily let our pique at how we were treated in the last case influence how we describe the other lawyer now.
Second, we have to have some rudimentary understanding of ourselves ' after all, contentious lawyers do a lot of what psychiatrists call 'projection.' That is, they 'project' their own wretched characteristics onto their opponents to justify the next bad thing they plan to do (eg, 'The only reason I acted like a creep is because you have to fight fire with fire'). Or maybe that's called rationalization. Third, we need to be accurate and constrained in explaining opposing counsel to our battle-weary clients. These clients need to understand that the nature of the opposing attorney is a factor, like any other, in deciding whether to go to trial or settle. It is usually not the most important factor, but along with the facts, the law, the venue and the risks, we need to tell our clients the skinny on whether opposing counsel is clean or dirty.

By 'constrained,' I mean that we shouldn't turn our accurate description of the other lawyer into an epic account of the depths of perfidy and corruption in the human soul. Besides, a lawyer who repeatedly rants about opposing counsel needs to take a look in the mirror.

My client finally got deposed 'and then some. I thought I had explained the deposition process well: I pointed out what a deposition was, how it worked, who would be there; I told my client to tell the truth, and not to answer questions that she didn't understand. I explained what objections I could make, and so forth. Well, I left out a little something that my client promptly pointed out after her deposition was taken '

Client: You didn't tell me that the opposing lawyer was the devil incarnate.

Me: Oh, he was a little rough on you, but, honestly, it was his deposition, and he gets a little leeway in asking his questions.

Client: A little leeway! He was a snotty, despicable spawn of Satan. And you just sat there. Why didn't you do something?

Me: In my business, you get accustomed to these cases of demonic possession. He was just trying to shake you up. It's all a game. You're taking this way too personally. He's just trying to get you off balance. Ignore him, and you'll feel better.
Client: Ignore him? Is that all the advice that you have? What can we do about him? Won't the judge do something? What about the State Bar of Texas? The FBI? He's a monster. What are you going to do about it?

Me: Hey, his client's deposition is coming up next week. I'll just be twice as ugly to him and his client then. How about that?
How do we explain the antics of opposing counsel to our clients? Sure, most lawyers are reasonably professional and act like they have some manners. As for some others I've encountered, I probably couldn't muster up a plausible explanation for their presence on earth. Like every lawyer of any tenure whatsoever, I have faced off with opposing counsel who severely tried my patience.
Any lawyer worth his or her salt can tell tales of opposing counsel who thought that the legal profession was his or her personal vehicle for reliving and avenging his or her childhood wrongs. It is a lot like what social workers call the 'cycle of child abuse.' Those who feel they were abused think they have a
personal privilege to abuse others. Naturally, it doesn't help matters that a lot of hyper-glandular people are attracted to the legal profession because it looks like the perfect job for bullying other people. Plus, it pays well.
Of course, the apologists for this sort of bad lawyering like to argue that 'the legal profession ain't no ice-cream social.' They also argue that the attorneys' objectionable behavior is 'zealous advocacy,' which is next to godliness in the pantheon of ethical requirements. Of course, there is no 'ethical requirement' that justifies name-calling, flouting the rules and frivolous filing of motions. It is simply a conceit that these lawyers rely on to transform their vices into supposed virtues.

How Do We Explain?

How do we explain the behavior of opposing counsel to our clients?
First, we lawyers have to have some objective understanding of our adversaries to decide whether some extended explanation to our clients is necessary. It is all too easy to characterize every opposing counsel as 'Satan's in-house counsel' when the reality is that most don't even come close. We can easily let our pique at how we were treated in the last case influence how we describe the other lawyer now.
Second, we have to have some rudimentary understanding of ourselves ' after all, contentious lawyers do a lot of what psychiatrists call 'projection.' That is, they 'project' their own wretched characteristics onto their opponents to justify the next bad thing they plan to do (eg, 'The only reason I acted like a creep is because you have to fight fire with fire'). Or maybe that's called rationalization. Third, we need to be accurate and constrained in explaining opposing counsel to our battle-weary clients. These clients need to understand that the nature of the opposing attorney is a factor, like any other, in deciding whether to go to trial or settle. It is usually not the most important factor, but along with the facts, the law, the venue and the risks, we need to tell our clients the skinny on whether opposing counsel is clean or dirty.

By 'constrained,' I mean that we shouldn't turn our accurate description of the other lawyer into an epic account of the depths of perfidy and corruption in the human soul. Besides, a lawyer who repeatedly rants about opposing counsel needs to take a look in the mirror.