Conquering Difficult Adversaries

• Pages: 18-19
• Date: 01 July 2024
• Subject Matter: Civil Law

Conquering Dicult Adversaries

How do you handle a dicult adversary? Appellate Advocacy Blog’s Adam Lamparello

has some tips for keeping your blood pressure down while representing your clients

well. (1) Remain calm, professional, and patient—reacting emotionally or arguing will

only feed your adversary’s need for attention, exhaust you, and will not achieve your

litigation objectives. (2) Be kind—being combative with a difficult adversary will not

help you reach your goals, but being kind may disarm them and make cooperation and

compromise more likely. (3) Draw boundaries and command respect—when necessary,

firmly make clear the adversary’s behavior is unacceptable and set boundaries such as

refusing to take their calls or involving the court. (4) Change strategies—because dicult

adversaries often like to control the narrative, sometimes changing strategies is eec-

tive. Reframe legal and factual issues and identify areas of common

ground. (5) Get o email—some dicult adversaries use email

to say things they would not otherwise. If you receive an

oensive email, do not respond in kind or immediately.

When ready, call your adversary, which may increase

the likelihood of a true dialogue and a favorable

outcome. (6) Remember it is not about you—dicult

people often need to see themselves as the victim,

and their behavior has nothing to do with you.

According to Lamparello, most lawyers will en-

counter jerks in their legal career, but knowing

how to deal with them will reduce stress and

keep you focused on the best results for

your client.

AI-Induced Discipline

Considering l etting AI write your legal

briefs? LawSites’s Bob Ambrogi re-

ports on a Flor ida lawyer who may

be having second thoughts.

The U.S. D istrict Court f or the

Middle Distri ct of Florida

adopted the report and

recommendation of its

grievance committee, issu -

ing the lawyer a one -year

suspension for f‌iling plead-

ings with frivolous l egal argu-

ments suppo rted by

cases that were “com -

pletely fab ricated.”

The law yer’s oppos ing

counsel broug ht the

matter to the discip lin-

ary committe e after he

was unable to f‌ind th e cited

© Getty Image s

cases and asked f or copies. The law yer instead provided

non-respon sive and evasive answers. During his i nterview

with the disciplin ary committee , the lawyer said “he used

Westlaw and Fastcase and m ay have used artif‌ici al intel-

ligence to draft t he f‌iling(s) but was not able to che ck the

excerpts and citatio ns.” He later provide d a further written

response that fa iled either to provide a n explanation for

the fabricated c ases or to demonstrate an unders tanding

of the seriousne ss of the situation. The disciplin ary com-

mittee found the l awyer’s conduc t went beyond a simple

failure to exercise due d iligence. In its report and re com-

mendation, th e committee issued a warning to lawye rs

everywhere: “ Whereas we understand that a rtif‌icial intel-

ligence is beco ming a new tool for lega l research, it can

never take the place of a n attorney’s respon sibility to con-

duct reasona ble diligence and provide accurate le gal au-

thority to the Cour t that supports a valid legal a rgument.”

SUMMER 2 024 • VOL. 49 NO. 4

18 | ABA LITIGATION SECTIO N

POSTED& NOTED

SIGHTINGS FROM TH E BLOGOSPHERE