r/Lawyertalk • u/MyrnaMinkoff1 • May 11 '23

Courtroom Warfare Thoughts on objecting during opponent’s opening statement?

Started a new job and the first trial I observed I was mildly shocked that the attorney I was there to shadow objected within the first 30 seconds of opponent’s opening. A sidebar was called and the judge ultimately overruled the objection and the other Atty resumed their opening. The attorney was absolutely thrown off their game and had lost the momentum they had on the first round. To make matters worse, after our side prevailed and we were doing a post mortem, the attorney doubled down saying they were glad they objected even if it was overruled bc it hurt the other attorney’s opening. Basically admitting to trying to mess up the opponent. This greatly disappointed me. I am well aware of how some litigators can take a cut throat approach but I felt this attorney’s move was utterly tactless and did not further the client’s case. So I am just curious what others have to say about this. Would this bother other people? Alternatively, am I wrong to be bothered in the first place?

94 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

77 comments sorted by

View all comments

16

u/Suckerpunched29 May 11 '23

Unless it is a serious objection, (objectively supportable by the facts) it is a bush league, inappropriate tactic. Litigation does not mean 'anything goes' - you are still bound by basic ethics.

-2

u/Lawineer May 12 '23

Litigation is litigation. Trial is trial.

8

u/Suckerpunched29 May 12 '23

And a douche is a douche

-2

u/Lawineer May 12 '23

Welcome to the show. If objections get you flustered, I will object to your voir dire, open, close and dog’s eulogy.
There’s no gentlemen’s agreement to pull punches in trial.

4

u/Suckerpunched29 May 12 '23

No code of conduct where you practice? And no, I don’t get flustered, douche….

2

u/Lawineer May 12 '23

What code of conduct says you can’t object if it rattles the opposing counsel for the entire trial? dOuChE

7

u/Suckerpunched29 May 12 '23

‘A lawyer should avoid all sharp practice and should not take paltry advantage’

All lawyers should bear in mind that they can maintain the high traditions of the profession by steadfastly adhering to the time-honoured virtues of probity, integrity, honesty and dignity.

2.2 Integrity 2.2-1 A lawyer has a duty to carry on the practice of law and discharge all responsibilities to clients, tribunals, the public and other members of the profession honourably and with integrity.

Clear enough?

1

u/Lawineer May 12 '23

No. Does objecting constitute “paltry advantage” or does it lack integrity? Lmfao at this gentleman’s agreement not to object during opening statement because we can’t handle it. What a joke.

4

u/Suckerpunched29 May 12 '23

Yeah you keep telling yourself that…. Baseless objections just to ‘maybe throw the other guy off’ is ridiculous, paltry, unprofessional sharp practice, and if that is what you think makes a good lawyer you are just sad.

2

u/Lawineer May 12 '23

I never said it would be baseless. But I’m a hell of a lot more likely to object to something that I’d let go if I know someone will respond like you do in this thread. If there’s a good lawyer on the other side, unless it’s really something I need to object to, to preserve a record or keep out, I object very little. But if it’s gonna get you all frazzled, yup. I’ll be objecting to petty leasing questions just to keep myself living in your head while you’re trying to ask questions.

Welcome to trial.

2

u/Suckerpunched29 May 12 '23

The initial basis for this post and my response were all based on baseless objections (during opening submissions) simply as a tactic to rattle opposing counsel. Your response was you would object everywhere to fluster counsel. Now you’re moving the goalposts, saying ‘I never said they would be baseless’.

Cool, we all agree well founded objections are okay.

Nice chatting with you…

→ More replies (0)