Professional Courtesy
| Publication year | 1996 |
| Pages | 55 |
| Citation | Vol. 25 No. 11 Pg. 55 |
1996, November, Pg. 55. Professional Courtesy
The greater man, the greater courtesy.
Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Idylls of the King,
"The Last Tournament"---Line 628
Respectfully,(fn2) Plaintiffs' argument on the First Amendment suggests they have the brains of potted plants.
Defendants' discussion of the First Amendment is an "Alice-in-Wonderland" concoction.
Defendants' cynical reliance on the First Amendment to procure an unfair competitive advantage should be recognized as the sham it is and disregarded by the Court.(fn3)
If you have encountered in an opposing brief any personal attacks(fn4) similar to those quoted, you've probably felt tempted to respond in kind. Resist the urge.
First, remember your audience. It's not opposing counsel, to whom you would be targeting your counterattacks. Instead, your audience is the court. You can best influence that audience by making the court's job easier with a brief that is enjoyable to read. It's not enjoyable to read a battle between bickering rivals. Instead of being impressed with your gumption in responding, the court more likely will be irritated that both parties have stooped to enter the fray.
Second, personal attacks can make you look desperate. My fifth grade daughter had her first lesson in debate at school this year. Here's the advice she brought home from her coach:
"When you can't think of anything else to say, just respond with something like, 'That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard.' That will make the other guys mad and distract them from thinking of ways to respond to your arguments."
Although this technique may work in debate, it's not a good strategy for briefs. The difference is in the objective. With sprinting, the goal is to see who can run the fastest, regardless of form. In contrast, gymnastic floor exercises are judged entirely on form; finishing fast---ahead of one's music---is penalized.
The objective of a brief is not to show who is tougher or wittier at comebacks. The objective is to present the more persuasive, rational argument to the court. Attacking opposing counsel personally does not achieve this objective. In fact, such a personal attack may alert judges schooled in debate that you are using a diversionary tactic because you have no rational response. Avoid...
To continue reading
Request your trial