igniting a spark

Some people are writers at heart. No matter what they choose to spend their time drafting, they do it with style and flare. These writers also appreciate good writing when they encounter it. No matter what form it takes.

Somewhere in the practice of law, most writers lose their flare. Motion upon motion, brief upon brief, letter upon letter, their writing becomes more and more bland. It doesn't have to be colorful as long as it hits all the dots along the way. That's what you're taught. The simpler, the better.

There are a rare few, however, who cannot shake their innate drive to create. Their talent bleeds through into their work, making the most mundane of tasks enjoyable. These are the people who keep things interesting. Who ignite a spark in the midst of the musty old world that is lawyering. One of my closest friends, and an associate at my firm, reminded me this morning that true talent can't be suppressed. He drafted a letter today, in response to yet another threat from an uncooperative opposing counsel. For those of you who don't practice law, this kind of thing becomes tediously predictable. Most would either ignore the threat, phone the other attorney and give him an earfull from the safety of their office, or draft a boring letter to cover their ass. Not my friend. Here is the letter, redacted, for your viewing pleasure.

Dear Mr. A:

I received your letter of January 30, 2006 – it warrants response and clarification. First, I observe how undignified it is for those in our profession to jump the gun and accuse another attorney of imposing a pleading for an improper purpose, and how equally undignified it is to threaten sanctions as an instinctive reaction to the nature of the adversarial process; this is especially true where one does not return repeated phone calls or respond to letters. Having said that, I note that during each of the times I have actually been able to reach you, you have been nothing but courteous and polite.

I also note that obtaining discovery from your client in this action has been akin to pulling teeth. You do not return my phone calls or respond to my letters. You and your client do not timely respond to the most basic discovery requests. Indeed, it is inaccurate to say that your office confirmed February 6 with me as the date for Mr. K's deposition. As you well know, I asked you repeatedly – by letter and by phone messages – to provide a date for Mr. K's deposition. Your letter of yesterday was your first response. I served Mr. K’s deposition notice after waiting for more than three weeks for you to provide dates for Mr. K’s deposition. Accordingly, given the January 29 discovery cutoff date in this case, and the need to preserve my right to take Mr. K’s deposition – coupled, of course, with your refusal to confirm dates for Mr. K’s deposition – I had no other choice but to take this matter before the Court to ensure that my client’s interests were protected. As I mentioned in my Motion to Compel, I will promptly withdraw it provided your client appears for and cooperates in his deposition on the date and time set.

Please let me know at your earliest convenience whether your client is unable to obtain the documents requested in his deposition notice. If any of the requested documents are not produced at my office at the time set, I will reserve my right to continue Mr. K’s deposition at a time when those documents are made available. Thank you for confirming that Mr. K’s deposition will go forward at my office on Monday, February 6, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. If I have misstated or inaccurately characterized any of the above, please contact me at your earliest convenience. I look forward to working with you to resolving the claims and defenses in this matter.

Sincerely,
Associate Who Clearly Has the Passion to Write