<p>Yes, helpful people tend to hurt their cases most by opening up areas that the other side may never have thought of; they can also poke holes in their own cases through their “help.” The shorter your depo can be, the better for YOU. Remember, YOUR attorney will get the info he wants from you, NOT the other attorney.</p>
<p>WOW!</p>
<p>What a day. I just got home and have been debriefing to DW. I’ll post a few details later. It was quite an experience. I managed to get under the other attorney’s skin toward the end, with him “offended” by my “outrageous” testimony. My attorney was making countless objections, calling him argumentative.</p>
<p>In short, my attorney told me I did a great job and didn’t do anything to hurt my case.</p>
<p>Edit to add: It amazes me how some of these threads get legs and some die very quickly. I posted quickly in the morning and once during a break and come home to see 20 some responses and over 700 views. Not big, but still pretty cool. If there’s more interest, I’ll post more later; otherwise I’ll let it die.</p>
<p>I tell my clients to only answer yes or no to the extent possible.</p>
<p>In my state, you can no longer direct a witness not to answer a question put to him/her unless it is a matter of privilege. All objections, except as to the form of a question (the wording) are deemed preserved until trial even if not stated at the time.</p>
<p>It sounds like you did fine.</p>
<p>My dad does a lot of engineering consulting and occasionally acts as an expert witness. He hate depositions so much that he charges TWICE his standard hourly rate when he has to do one. Since he’s also a professor, he’s really good at calmly explaining things and not getting trapped, but it’s a challenge!</p>
<p>Many witnesses charge extra for depos because they hate them so much, especially docs. Some decline patients if they believe there is a likelihood that they’ll end up having to testify–too much trouble & wrecks havoc on their practices.</p>
<p>Attorneys sometimes feign exasperation to see if that will yield them anything & try whatever they can to see how to get the witness rattled. Sounds sane that objections be preserved rather than having them clutter up the transcript & clog court time having them rescheduled because they had to be adjourned over a point.</p>
<p>Does sound like you did great!</p>
<p>Thanks, everyone, for all of the helpful comments. I read them on my phone during every break.</p>
<p>Warning: The following will probably be less interesting to laymen than to legal types, and may not be interesting to them, either.</p>
<p>I was well prepared for the deposition. I know the facts well and I was well coached on how to answer the questions. That part, playing defense, went very well. It was amazing how many obvious (to me) follow up questions he missed asking. Lesson learned on that part of it.</p>
<p>My attorney had also warned me that opposing counsel was known for grilling witnesses about the facts and theories of their counterclaims. In preparation for this, Tuesday night I read our counterclaims thoroughly enough to be comfortable with all of our theories.</p>
<p>Sure enough, I was grilled about my counterclaims. My initial answers focused on how these were legal theories that I leave to the lawyers to argue but, when he pressed me for better answers, I went on offense. I calmly dissected his compound questions, argued both facts and law, and continually held my ground. Strangely, the longer I resisted his attempts to bully me, the more aggressive he became. After one of his particularly annoying interruptions of me I asked for a brief intermission. During the break I apologized to my attorney for going off defense and getting angry.</p>
<p>His response shocked me. He told me I was doing great, thought I wasnt showing anger at all, and that by showing that I knew the facts and the law and wasnt afraid to hold my ground that I was showing opposing counsel that I would be a credible and formidable witness at trial. In short, he told me, if he keeps it up, dont back down.</p>
<p>After the break opposing counsel came out with both barrels fully loaded, asking and re-asking more probing questions about our legal theories. When he didnt like my answers, he accused me of being unresponsive. Many objections later, I laid into him with an answer he really, really didnt like. I outlined how his client had, with his assistance, colluded with and suborned the perjurous testimony of a party to the suit whom they claim is incompetent. When I likened taking a declaration and a confession of judgment from an incompetent to taking candy from a baby he lost his cool and accused me of making outrageous and slanderous statements.</p>
<p>At the end of the day my attorney told me Id done a great job. I feel great.</p>
<p>Thanks for reading.</p>
<p>If you make mistakes during the deposition you have the right to correct them. The lawyer must send you the transcript of the deposition to review, make corrections, sign and send back to him. I did that once.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[ORIS:</a> Deposition Instructions](<a href=“Home | Emory University | Atlanta GA”>Home | Emory University | Atlanta GA)</p>
<p>Agree about the importance of reading your transcript. It is the COURT REPORTER who will send it to you, and yes, you can talk over potential changes with your attorney. For the most part, most of the clients we’ve had have not had many or any changes, except when a word and/or name and/or address is misspelled. Good counsel & court reporters often have the witness spell (during the depo or break) anything that might have multiple spellings, but not always.</p>
<p>Sometimes when many people talk over one another, it is tough for the court reporter and the transcript can get garbled. This is when some court reporter literally put their hands in the air to show that they’re not getting any of it. Good court reporters tend to be pretty accurate, but it’s good to review carefully and take your time, especially since it sounds like your depo took quite a long time.</p>
<p>Agree that attorneys do test and see how witnesses react to being pushed and bullied to size up how they’d do in court, which gives them a better idea of what the trier of fact might do with the testimony. Sounds like your holding your ground unnerved counsel–many are unused to being thwarted or chided.</p>
<p>As someone who dislikes being deposed, I am impressed by your performance under the stress. Congrats!!!</p>
<p>Its so nice that so many lawyers on CC offered such good advice. I especially liked that MOWC uses her feet to communicate.</p>
<p>I had 2 depositions in the past few weeks. In the last one I knew what I had to say was going to make one attorney unhappy, but I couldn’t help that. Maybe I could have said less, but I couldn’t change my opinion. I feel bad, but the situatin was what it was.</p>
<p>Glad yours went well, Sherpa.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This kind of consultation and coaching in the middle of depositions is no longer permitted in any jurisdiction I’m aware of; if adversary counsel decides to pursue the issue (most don’t bother unless the coaching is particularly obvious), sanctions can be awarded and there can be harmful consequences to one’s case. </p>
<p>The example of answering only the question that I usually give when I’m preparing a witness is that if they’re asked “Do you know what time it is,” the answer should be “yes” or “no,” and nothing more.</p>
<p>Joan52, there are obviously limits to the rule that a lawyer can direct his or her witness not to answer only on privilege grounds, not because of claimed irrelevance. I believe that in New York you can still direct a witness not to answer the question if it’s “palpably irrelevant.” Not to mention that as long as the attorney doesn’t actually direct the witness not to answer, the witness him or herself can sometimes get away with refusing to answer a question on relevance grounds, if the irrelevance is obvious. In any event, refusals to answer on relevance grounds (whether or not directed by the attorney) happen all the time, and adversary counsel rarely pursues it. Especially if the question really was irrelevant.</p>
<p>
Yes, but don’t abuse this right or it can backfire on you. In my deposition yesterday I learned that the opposing party, who we had deposed a month or so ago, has sent in pages and pages of “corrections” that are actually a rewriting of her testimony.</p>
<p>My attorney will be filing a motion to either strike her changes or to allow us to reopen her deposition, to allow follow up questions to her modified answers.</p>
<p>Apparently a party making such wholesale changes to their testimony can be held liable for the entire cost of the new deposition, including the legal costs of the opposing party.</p>
<p>Extensive corrections can also be used to undermine the credibility of the witness–You said this during your depo, made extensive corrections & now in court are saying something different. Which story do you want to have believed? Also, it sounds reasonable to have the court impose costs of the new depo as well as costs for having to file the motion & get a ruling by the court for a new depo. These things drive up the expenses of litigation and make cases drag on.</p>
<p>Be careful about making “corrections.” If you find it necessary to change one thing make sure the rest of the testimony is 100% accurate. If you mistakenly overlook something else that should have been changed which subsequently comes to light it will look bad. Also, I hope you didn’t “not recall” too often. Many times deponents go overboard with that in a transparent attempt to be evasive and wind up appearing exactly that.</p>