The Experts below are selected from a list of 684 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Wayne Schiess - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
write effective letters to Opposing Counsel
Social Science Research Network, 2009Co-Authors: Wayne SchiessAbstract:In your correspondence with Opposing Counsel, strive for a tone that is assertive without being offensive, firm without being mean, and precise without being insulting. This article discusses how.
Office Of Communications And Public Relations - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Bishop argues before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Digital Commons @ Georgia Law, 2017Co-Authors: Office Of Communications And Public RelationsAbstract:Bishop argues before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Monday, January 30, 2017 Third-year student Rachel M. Bishop recently presented oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit as part of the law school’s Appellate Litigation Clinic. The clinic\u27s client alleges that he was terminated by his trucking-company employer after filing a complaint with the EEOC, while the employer alleges the client was terminated because he failed to re-train after having a minor accident in a loading dock. Third-year students Allan T. Trevor Buhr and Christopher D. Chris Stokes assisted in writing briefs and in helping Bishop prepare by acting as Opposing Counsel during practice arguments
-
Appellate Litigation Clinic gains victory in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Digital Commons @ Georgia Law, 2017Co-Authors: Office Of Communications And Public RelationsAbstract:Appellate Litigation Clinic gains victory in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Georgia Law\u27s Appellate Litigation Clinic recently won a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Third-year student Jacob S. “Jake” Edwards presented oral argument addressing the question of whether or not the client’s habeas petition was second or successive given that it challenged a “new judgment.” The court decided in favor of the clinic\u27s position that the petition was not second or successive. Third-year students Mary Grace Griffin and David R. Waldrep assisted in writing briefs and in helping Edwards prepare by acting as Opposing Counsel during practice arguments. All three students attended the argument in Richmond, Virginia, during October
-
Edwards argues before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Digital Commons @ Georgia Law, 2016Co-Authors: Office Of Communications And Public RelationsAbstract:Third-year student Jacob S. “Jake” Edwards recently presented oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit as part of the law school’s Appellate Litigation Clinic. The question in the case was whether Mr. William Gray, Jr.’s habeas petition was second or successive given that it challenged a “new judgment.” Third-year students Mary Grace Griffin and David R. Waldrep assisted in writing briefs and in helping Edwards prepare by acting as Opposing Counsel during practice arguments. All three students attended the argument in Richmond, Virginia
-
Rosenthal argues before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Digital Commons @ Georgia Law, 2016Co-Authors: Office Of Communications And Public RelationsAbstract:Third-year student Matt B. Rosenthal recently presented oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit as part of the law school\u27s Appellate Litigation Clinic. The case was Lawrence Niskey v. Jeh Johnson, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and the question was whether Niskey had exhausted his administrative remedies while pursuing his Title VII claims. Third-year students Mandi R. Moroz and Lesley A. O’Neill were student Counsel in the case as well. They helped Rosenthal prepare by acting as Opposing Counsel during practice arguments, and they attended the argument in D.C. The three judges hearing the case were Patricia A. Millett, Cornelia T.L. Pillard and Stephen F. Williams
John Lande - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
getting good results for clients by building good working relationships with Opposing Counsel
University of La Verne Law Review, 2011Co-Authors: John LandeAbstract:Lawyers’ relationships with their “Opposing Counsel” make a big difference in how well they handle their cases. “Opposing Counsel” often do oppose each other, sometimes quite vigorously, though they also regularly cooperate with each other. In the normal course of litigation, lawyers need to cooperate on many procedural matters. In some cases, they also cooperate to achieve their respective clients’ substantive interests. If the lawyers have a bad relationship, the case is likely to be miserable for everyone involved. If they have a good relationship, they are more likely to agree on procedural matters, exchange information informally, take reasonable negotiation positions, resolve matters efficiently, satisfy their clients, and enjoy their work. This article suggests general techniques for providing effective representation by building good working relationships between counterpart lawyers. This analysis is based, in part, on interviews with lawyers published in the author’s book, Lawyering with Planned Early Negotiation: How You Can Get Good Results for Clients and Make Money. The techniques include getting to know each other personally, initiating mutually helpful actions, and displaying respectful relationships in front of clients. The article argues that these approaches can be helpful even when lawyers take extreme positions or are rascals. Obviously, these methods will not always generate constructive relationships or produce satisfying results. But lawyers who conscientiously use them should substantially increase the likelihood of doing so. The article concludes that lawyers have little to lose and much to gain by trying to develop good working relationships with their counterparts.
Lande, John M. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Getting Good Results for Clients by Building Good Working Relationships with \u27Opposing Counsel\u27
University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository, 2011Co-Authors: Lande, John M.Abstract:Lawyers’ relationships with their “Opposing Counsel” make a big difference in how well they handle their cases. “Opposing Counsel” often do oppose each other, sometimes quite vigorously, though they also regularly cooperate with each other. In the normal course of litigation, lawyers need to cooperate on many procedural matters. In some cases, they also cooperate to achieve their respective clients’ substantive interests. If the lawyers have a bad relationship, the case is likely to be miserable for everyone involved. If they have a good relationship, they are more likely to agree on procedural matters, exchange information informally, take reasonable negotiation positions, resolve matters efficiently, satisfy their clients, and enjoy their work.This article suggests general techniques for providing effective representation by building good working relationships between counterpart lawyers. This analysis is based, in part, on interviews with lawyers published in the author’s book, Lawyering with Planned Early Negotiation: How You Can Get Good Results for Clients and Make Money. The techniques include getting to know each other personally, initiating mutually helpful actions, and displaying respectful relationships in front of clients. The article argues that these approaches can be helpful even when lawyers take extreme positions or are rascals. Obviously, these methods will not always generate constructive relationships or produce satisfying results. But lawyers who conscientiously use them should substantially increase the likelihood of doing so. The article concludes that lawyers have little to lose and much to gain by trying to develop good working relationships with their counterparts
Maclellan Eleanor - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Managing Law Firm Politics: A Reflection for Newer Lawyers Practicing in Law Firms
University of New Hampshire Scholars\u27 Repository, 2010Co-Authors: Maclellan EleanorAbstract:Much has been written about lawyers’ ethical obligations to clients and their professional responsibilities to the court and Opposing Counsel. But little has been written about navigating the sometimes treacherous waters of law firm politics. Whether the “law firm” is the AG’s or Public Defender’s office, a large or small private practice, or a public interest non-profit, we all have to “get along” with our colleagues down the hall, sometimes for decades
