The Talking Lawyer By Daniel Bulusson

In the judicial sector, there are Honorable Judges and Justices
who conduct proceedings to adjudicate matters between parties, and
dispense justice by listening to both parties (claimant/complainant
and defendant/accused). In the course of conducting proceedings in
the courtroom, it is not part of a sitting judge’s duty to take
over proceedings from counsels representing parties, like
descending into the arena, examining and cross-examining witness,
making objections on behalf of counsels, and the likes.

Many years back in England, there was a judge named ‘hippy
harlet’ who descended into the arena, took over proceedings from
counsels appearing before him, and then pass judgment. When one of
his judgments was appealed, Lord Denning while delivering his
judgment said a judge should avoid being a ‘hippy harlet’ talking
too much, and delving into the arena.

On the other hand, in the bar we have lawyers, who have similar
traits with ‘hippy harlet’, talking excessively without control
while representing a client. This crop of lawyers can be referred
to as ‘the talking lawyer’. This set of lawyers when appearing
before my lord/lady, always has a response to the hints and
guidance of the court, spends more time explaining the reason for
his/her actions rather than go straight to the business of day, and
when allowed to address the court spends more time explaining why A
is A, and Z is Z, spilling unnecessary facts all in a bid to prove
a point.

Sadly, many are unaware of the difference between oral and
written communication, they feel speaking and writing are one and
the same thing, the way they speak is the same way they write. For
this reason, ‘the talking lawyer’ is not only restricted to
communication while addressing the court, his/her manner of
speaking also reflects on court processes prepared by this kind of
lawyer. In legal practice, lawyers are often confronted with court
processes containing facts that have no bearing on the subject
matter of litigation, leaving the other counsel in the dilemma of
responding or not.

It is important to state at this point, in communication there
is sure to be misinterpretation of facts. If one writes in direct
translation of how they speak. Thus, it becomes imperative while
drafting legal document, for a legal professional to be concise,
precise and coherent to carry along readers with different mindset
and viewpoint. It is my humble opinion that no matter how good a
case may seem to look, a talking lawyer can lose if he/she fails to
effectively communicate his message on behalf of clients to learned
friends and presiding judges/justices.

It is one thing to be acquainted with the principles of law, and
another to put such knowledge into use. ‘The talking lawyer’ mostly
feels that he knows it all and so above correction, truth be told,
a legal professional that talks carelessly without paying attention
to the observation of other colleagues can hardly learn anything
new, and when you don’t learn as a lawyer, you get stuck in a
particular situation longer than necessary.

Talking is part of the legal profession, but talk effectively,
restrict arguments to necessary facts, spilling more information
than needed exposes both self and client. Some lawyers talk out of
impulse unconsciously getting personal with client’s case, others
feel they need to talk to make a point, whichever the case may be,
legal professionals ought to understand that spoken and written
words have a high tendency of meaning different things.

In sum, legal professionals ought to pay attention to the
importance and effect of communicating effectively; a lawyer
without a good communication skill and discipline is likened to a
farmer that goes to the farm without his farm tools, one cannot
survive without the other.  Unfortunately, some lawyers pay
less attention to developing this vital skill; they erroneously
believe that their knowledge of the law is all they need to make it
in the legal profession.

Paraphrasing Lord Denning words, a practicing lawyer should not
be a ‘talking lawyer’ to avoid the pitfalls that come with the
vulnerability of talking too much.

Godspeed!

Do send your comment{s}, observation{s} and recommendation{s} to
danielbulusson@gmail.com, follow on twitter @bulussdan, or like our
page on www.facebook.com/younglawyersforum

In the judicial sector, there are Honorable Judges and Justices
who conduct proceedings to adjudicate matters between parties, and
dispense justice by listening to both parties (claimant/complainant
and defendant/accused). In the course of conducting proceedings in
the courtroom, it is not part of a sitting judge’s duty to take
over proceedings from counsels representing parties, like
descending into the arena, examining and cross-examining witness,
making objections on behalf of counsels, and the likes.

Many years back in England, there was a judge named ‘hippy
harlet’ who descended into the arena, took over proceedings from
counsels appearing before him, and then pass judgment. When one of
his judgments was appealed, Lord Denning while delivering his
judgment said a judge should avoid being a ‘hippy harlet’ talking
too much, and delving into the arena.

On the other hand, in the bar we have lawyers, who have similar
traits with ‘hippy harlet’, talking excessively without control
while representing a client. This crop of lawyers can be referred
to as ‘the talking lawyer’. This set of lawyers when appearing
before my lord/lady, always has a response to the hints and
guidance of the court, spends more time explaining the reason for
his/her actions rather than go straight to the business of day, and
when allowed to address the court spends more time explaining why A
is A, and Z is Z, spilling unnecessary facts all in a bid to prove
a point.

Sadly, many are unaware of the difference between oral and
written communication, they feel speaking and writing are one and
the same thing, the way they speak is the same way they write. For
this reason, ‘the talking lawyer’ is not only restricted to
communication while addressing the court, his/her manner of
speaking also reflects on court processes prepared by this kind of
lawyer. In legal practice, lawyers are often confronted with court
processes containing facts that have no bearing on the subject
matter of litigation, leaving the other counsel in the dilemma of
responding or not.

It is important to state at this point, in communication there
is sure to be misinterpretation of facts. If one writes in direct
translation of how they speak. Thus, it becomes imperative while
drafting legal document, for a legal professional to be concise,
precise and coherent to carry along readers with different mindset
and viewpoint. It is my humble opinion that no matter how good a
case may seem to look, a talking lawyer can lose if he/she fails to
effectively communicate his message on behalf of clients to learned
friends and presiding judges/justices.

It is one thing to be acquainted with the principles of law, and
another to put such knowledge into use. ‘The talking lawyer’ mostly
feels that he knows it all and so above correction, truth be told,
a legal professional that talks carelessly without paying attention
to the observation of other colleagues can hardly learn anything
new, and when you don’t learn as a lawyer, you get stuck in a
particular situation longer than necessary.

Talking is part of the legal profession, but talk effectively,
restrict arguments to necessary facts, spilling more information
than needed exposes both self and client. Some lawyers talk out of
impulse unconsciously getting personal with client’s case, others
feel they need to talk to make a point, whichever the case may be,
legal professionals ought to understand that spoken and written
words have a high tendency of meaning different things.

In sum, legal professionals ought to pay attention to the
importance and effect of communicating effectively; a lawyer
without a good communication skill and discipline is likened to a
farmer that goes to the farm without his farm tools, one cannot
survive without the other.  Unfortunately, some lawyers pay
less attention to developing this vital skill; they erroneously
believe that their knowledge of the law is all they need to make it
in the legal profession.

Paraphrasing Lord Denning words, a practicing lawyer should not
be a ‘talking lawyer’ to avoid the pitfalls that come with the
vulnerability of talking too much.

Godspeed!

Do send your comment{s}, observation{s} and recommendation{s} to
danielbulusson@gmail.com, follow on twitter @bulussdan, or like our
page on www.facebook.com/younglawyersforum