ON BEHALF OF my colleagues, I want to congratulate you on becoming members of the New Hampshire Bar. For those of you who took the February bar examination, a special note of congratulations is in order.

No doubt your heart skipped a beat when you learned that a scoring error had been made on the Multistate Bar Exam. We heard the news on a day we were here for oral argument. Our immediate reaction was to imagine what a shock this must have been for you. We wondered if anybody had fainted. Anyway, the good news is that now that you’ve taken the oath, some rule of law – collateral estoppel or something – makes the matter moot.

Over the last year or so, the court has traveled to a number of locations around the state to hear cases. As part of a public education effort, we’ve had oral arguments at St. Anselm’s in Manchester, Dover High School and, a few of weeks ago, at Dartmouth, where the audience included about 500 students from area high schools.

After the oral arguments, we had a question/answer session with the students. The students asked some good questions. At Dartmouth, one of the students asked a question that went something like this: "So, like, when you got to be a judge, like, I mean, like, like what was the first thing you did? Like, did you study really hard for, like, a few days and, like, learn all the law and then, like, decide the cases?"

I think that what this student had in mind is that being a judge is similar to studying for a history test. You cram for a couple of days and nights, learn all the legal rules and then apply them to the cases.

Obviously, the process of learning to be a judge and deciding cases is not what the student imagined.

Instead, the process reflects the fact that we decide a lot of cases in a lot of different areas of the law. Our cases range from speeding to first-degree murder; from divorce to antitrust; from labor law to zoning law. Each case requires us to educate ourselves in a particular, often very narrow area of the law.

The decision-making process requires lots of reading, and most of our reading is of the briefs submitted by the lawyers who appear before us. The lawyers educate us and inform us so we can better understand the law and the issues. We rely on the lawyers. Lawyers like you.

And I want to talk for a few minutes about what distinguishes the lawyers whom we regard as the better lawyers from those who are not well regarded. I’ve only been on the bench for about 2½ years, but have seen all kinds of lawyers – from big firms, small firms, the public sector, experienced and first-timers. While I doubt that many of you will appear at oral argument in this court in the next few months, I hope that these observations will be applicable no matter what your practice.

First, the good lawyers educate themselves. This can be time-consuming, but it always, repeat always, makes a difference. Some lawyers learn just enough about the law and the case to survive oral argument. But the lawyer who has taken the time to understand the law, to understand how it works, why the law is a certain way and what the ramifications of a particular case might be – that lawyer is persuasive. Why? Because in the decision-making process, we have to educate ourselves and think reflectively about what to hold and how to decide the case. The lawyer who helps us in this process gets our attention.

The self-education process can be time-consuming, but it is essential. I’m not just talking about learning the substantive law for appellate argument. Lawyers who truly educate themselves take the time before walking into negotiations to become thoroughly familiar with the facts and the law, or take the time to thoroughly familiarize themselves with the case files before picking up the phone to call another lawyer, or take the time to review and understand complicated documents before meeting with clients.

Just as we on the court learn from each of the cases we work on, you too can learn from the cases that you’ll handle. By viewing each case as an opportunity to expand your knowledge, you will be a better lawyer.

Second, the good lawyers deal with the important issues in a case in a straightforward, professional way.

You would be surprised to learn how many lawyers submit briefs in which they (a) accuse the other side of misrepresenting the facts; (b) imply that the trial judge is incompetent; or (c) make an impassioned plea for us to decide the case based on sympathy for their clients.

Sometimes, as I read briefs, I wonder if the lawyer has asked himself or herself: Is the argument I’m making likely to persuade the court to rule in favor of my client?

The better lawyers know their audience – whether it’s this court, a trial court, a jury, an administrative board or another lawyer. The better lawyers know, for example, that a plea for sympathy might work in front of a jury, but is less likely to carry the day here [at the Supreme Court].

The better lawyers also know that personal attacks have no place in argument. The funny thing is that no matter how many times judges tell lawyers that personal attacks are a bad approach, there are lawyers who keep using them. We repeatedly tell lawyers that labeling the other side’s argument as disingenuous or a gross misrepresentation or ridiculous is unpersuasive. More than that, in my view, if a lawyer has to resort to this kind of attack, I conclude it likely that the lawyer’s own arguments are weak.

You will undoubtedly have the unpleasant experience of dealing with lawyers whose methods of persuasion are inappropriate and unprofessional – like the lawyer I recently heard about who sends every letter to the other side first by e-mail, then by fax and also regular mail. As my 15-year-old would say, "Chill."

Third, the good lawyers exercise good judgment. The good lawyers do not brief eight issues. They are smart enough to know two things. First, there can’t possibly have been eight errors at the trial. Second, they know that after reading issues one through six, the judge will lose interest. The good lawyers have the confidence to be able to identify the strengths of their cases and to develop those strengths rather than wasting their own time, their clients’ money and everyone else’s time with tangential matters.

Frankly, developing this kind of judgment takes time. Inexperienced lawyers are sometimes driven by the clients’ demands and are nervous about malpractice or professional complaints.

In exercising judgment, the better lawyers are reflective. When faced with tough choices, they confer with their colleagues; they listen to the advice they get; they are willing to rethink their positions; and they recognize that someone else may have a better idea. In the end, they look at a case through the lens of a professional exercising sound judgment on behalf of a client.

Fourth, the good lawyers have balance in their lives. It is pretty easy to be swallowed up by the practice of law. Clients are demanding. Senior partners are demanding. Judges are impatient. Cases are interesting and time-consuming.

The better lawyers are able to maintain perspective in their professional lives by paying attention to their personal lives. A lawyer’s judgment is better when that lawyer is able to get away from work, forget about clients and focus instead on family, friends or on just having fun. Don’t let the practice of law – especially in your first few years – damage the rest of your life.

And so, I congratulate all of you on becoming members of the New Hampshire Bar. This is truly a good Bar. As a member of our Bar, I urge you to be reflective, professional and to grow in your knowledge and wisdom.

Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store
Lawyer Referral Service | Law-Related Education | NHBA•CLE | NHBA Insurance Agency | NHMCLE
Search | Calendar

New Hampshire Bar Association
2 Pillsbury Street, Suite 300, Concord NH 03301
phone: (603) 224-6942 fax: (603) 224-2910
email: NHBAinfo@nhbar.org
© NH Bar Association Disclaimer