Collaborative conversations
require a mindful approach
By Dan Cotter and Pat Eckler
Dan
Pat
W ith the American Bar Association focusing on “Civics, Civility, and Collaboration” this year, we reflected on how we behave as media partners — and why civility is the necessary foundation of the conversations about the law that we want to convene. We address plenty of matters of dispute in our roles co-host- ing the “Podium and Panel Podcast” and writing columns for the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin. We select cases that raise thorny is- sues in Illinois, Indiana, the 7th Circuit and at the Supreme Court level. Whether it’s national issues like abortion or free speech or Illinois cases on BIPA or the legislature following the constitutional requirements for enacting a bill, readers or listeners may not agree with our takes on the cases or the behavior of the litigants. There’s no shortage of things to disagree on — but we choose to tackle those issues with civility and collaboration as guideposts. We tend to ensure both of us have equal time. At times, we will defer to the person most passionate on a particular topic or most knowledgeable. Our goal as communicators is to provide information and per- spective on what is happening in the legal arena. Both of us were trained from the beginning that effective practitioners need not be incivil or posture, but that knowing the law and the facts matters in providing legal services. We aim not to alienate listeners or read- ers, but to have an engaging dialogue without being contentious or argumentative. With our discussions of courtroom presence, mistakes, mis- haps and instances where incivility are demonstrated, we talk about it and point out some ways to perhaps do things better. We don’t attack, but we do point out things that will make the advo - cates better and approach their jobs with civility. Social media on any platform is fraught with trollers and those who want to reiterate their views. We engage in robust but civil
debate on LinkedIn by posting views and responding to those who chime in, but we avoid full “nuclear interactions” where someone has an ax to grind. That behavior would alienate some in our audi- ence. But it’s also just not worth the time and energy. In more than one instance, we have covered cases where an advocate, generally for the appellant, will attack the trial court judge. This is not civil and it does not go well for the person at - tacking. On a lighter note, some judges have preferences, readily known, that attorneys can follow to make things run smoother in their courtrooms. (Word to the wise: Don’t use acronyms if you are in the 7th Circuit before Judge Frank H. Easterbrook. Avoid inten- sifiers — “clunky, disconcerting, and, typically, hyperbolic” — before 1st District Appellate Court Justice Michael B. Hyman.) Also, we’ve learned, dot your i’s and cross your t’s. It is a com - mon theme on the podcast that the underlying record is not per- fected for purposes of appeal. This is never good. Some teams embed appellate lawyers in trials. Not a bad idea; appellate lawyers know these things. Know the rules and understand them. It is good advocacy and makes for good interactions with opposing counsel. Sometimes, with people you're going to have to see again — next week, next show or next trial — it pays to focus on the relation- ship over winning points.
Dan Cotter
Pat Eckler
CHICAGO DAILY LAW BULLETIN • LAW DAY 2023 47
Powered by FlippingBook