Did you know a litigant is limited to no more than two "new trials" in any action?
The relevant statute is T.C.A. Sec. 27-2-101. Here it is:
"Not more than two (2) new trials shall be granted to the same party in an action at law, or upon the trial by jury of an issue of fact in equity."
Dahlia Lithwick at Slate has selected the Bush Administration’s Dumbest Legal Arguments of the Year.
The list stopped at ten arguments; the writer was obviously working with a severe space limitation.
Here is an excerpt from the article:
Here is an interesting article from the LA Times that discusses the cost of caps.
2. A Solid Knowledge of the Law of Evidence.
You have to know the facts. But mere knowledge of facts doesn’t do your client much good. You have to know how to get those facts before a factfinder. In other words, you need to understand the law of evidence.
The relative paucity of trials makes it difficult to keep current on the law of evidence. And simply keeping current on case law doesn’t do you much good – there are relatively few civil cases that discuss evidence issues. (Criminal law is another matter.)
Did you know that there is a statute that expressly permits physicians to base their opinions on subjective complaints?
Here it is:
T.C.A.Sec. 24-7-115
The subject of court approval of attorney’s fees in a case involving minors addressed in this post and this one have given rise to a discussion on the TAJ listserve about the wisdom of the decision. The debate has been interesting. One point made by several commentators is that some judges do not understand the economics of law practice. I first made that point on this blog here and said I would address it.
Here we go.
I was having dinner with several judges one night last spring and the subject of depositions came up. I mentioned that the cost of depositions was outrageous and that the cost of getting a transcript of a full-day deposition was almost $2000. To a person, they were shocked. I took the opportunity to talk about the cost of malpractice insurance, rent, etc. and once again they were shocked. That conversation gave rise to the comment in my previous post is that we need to better educate judges what it costs to run a law office.
The Tennessee Supreme Court has appointed me to the Advisory Commission on the Rules of Practice and Procedure effective January 1, 2008. I am honored by the appointment; I have always attempted to be a student of the rules of evidence and procedure and look forward to being a part of the process of improving them.
Do you have a proposed rule change that you think will advance the just, speedy and inexpensive resolution of disputes? Write me an email and give me your thoughts. Please don’t just pass on an idea – take a stab at drafting the language that you think should be adopted. Indicate why you think the rule change is appropriate.
Day on Torts: A Handbook for Tennessee Tort Lawyers 2008 has been updated. The updates are free and may be found at http://www.dayontortsbook.com/lawyer-attorney-1251567.html.
To order the book go to http://www.dayontortsbook.com/lawyer-attorney-1251565.html.
On December 14 I wrote about an opinion that addressed the issue of charging fees to minors. The opinion was written by Judge Walter Kurtz, a Nashville Circuit Court judge sitting by designation on the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
I have been hearing some negative comments about this opinion. I respectfully disagree with them and submit that the opinion is not only an accurate statement of Tennessee law but is a correct result on the facts.
What upsets some lawyers is this language: "The most striking void in the record is the lack of any precise information as to the amount of time spent on the case by counsel for the plaintiff." Judge Kurtz explained further in this footnote: "Courts and commentators have observed that time records – time spent on the case – are “central” to the calculation of attorney’s fees." [Citations omitted.]
I participated in a panel discussion at for the Young Lawyers Division of the Tennessee Bar Association on Friday and was asked this question: what does it take to be a great litigator?
I knew in advance that I would be asked that question and gave the matter a good deal of thought driving from Atlanta to Nashville Friday morning. My response seemed to go over pretty well so I thought that I would share the thoughts on this blog.
I changed the question to "what does it take to be a great trial lawyer?" I chose "trial lawyer" over "litigator" because I think that the readers of this blog tend to view "litigators" as paper-pushing big firm lawyers who don’t try cases. It is true that there are a significant number of lawyers in litigation departments in big firms who will never see the first or second chair of a jury trial, but it is also true that there are some great trial lawyers in those firms. My goal is identify the attributes of great trial lawyers, regardless of the type of cases they try, who they customarily represent, or whether their office is over the bank on the town square or in an all-glass office tower.
