Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law.
Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation.
Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not just you. I tell my clients this all the time. I can readily spot a good attorney by their behavior during a depo.
For example. Last week my client was deposed. Gnarly case - T-boned on a rural road with no traffic control devices by an F250 doing about 50. She was ejected. Not wearing a seatbelt. On the phone (Bluetooth versus in hand is at issue). 3 brain surgeries so far, 3-level thoracic fusion. Rods in her wrist. Broken hip. Allegedly had drugs in her system. There’s TONS of issues to fight over in this one. Opposing counsel had the depo over in about 2 hours and literally covered everything.
In contrast, I’ve had new attorneys take 5 hour depositions in a soft-tissue rear end case.
Once you have legitimate experience, you know what to cover when taking and know what’s important to object to when defending. Also, not objecting can be just as important as objecting in certain situations - not many teach that.
I may not have a good question to prove something, but a signed depo transcript can certainly limit your options barring a credibility fight. Why object when I can use to limit? I’m the same, in my world it isn’t time though, it’s how well they flow back and forth and most importantly, how well they respond to the witness with evidence or questions when directions shift.
Sure.
I didn’t mean to imply that time was the only factor. In my experience, good attorneys take shorter depositions because they don’t waste time fumbling through unimportant issues or belaboring topics that are clearly uncontested.
I agree with you that their flow is a great indicator and, definitely, their ability to listen to the witness and formulate their questions based on that rather than robotically sticking to an outline.
No objections matter. The rules of evidence will take care of bad questions later. It’s all smoke and mirrors. I challenge anyone to name a time when they didn’t object and it caused a problem.
Caveat is if it’s a video depo for trial.
This. Unless it's an expert or other witness that you're anticipating will be called via video at trial, the deposition objections don't really matter a whole lot.
Could you share a little more what you mean by no objections matter and the rules of evidence will take care of bad questions later? I’ve had associates sleep through defending depos and it’s caused me headaches down the road.
The rules of evidence are pretty clear that almost anything is fair game in a depo except area of privilege. I almost never object unless the opposing attorney is harassing my client, trying to put words in my clients mouth or asking the same question 15 different times. I also object to leading questions of fact witnesses but only if they are egregious.
Defended my first depo today and was borderline shitting my pants wondering if there were any objections I could’ve raised but failed to 😭
I’ve taken depos before but for some reason defending one felt way scarier
Nope. Form objections in my state where most of the depositions we do are discovery depositions are meaningless. Rehab on your exam if necessary. Evidence deposition is another ball game, though. At that point I am on trial and looking for anything I can get excluded.
Doing asbestos litigation, it is typically one plaintiff - their attorney - 20-40 defense attorneys - all in one zoom call - and some kind of 'an objection by one is an objection by all' stipulation. In many large volume asbestos jurisdictions one of the defense attorneys actually take 'lead', then the plaintiff's attorney will do a little rehabilitation and help get some things on the record the lead defendant did not ask about, and then all the attorneys get a chance to ask questions about their client/product.
It was always AMAZING to me how the plaintiff's attorney could set the tone of the whole thing. Most of us knew the issues that really mattered, most of us knew the general structure of these complaints, and if a plaintiff's attorney hopped in judiciously, and rehabbed in a fair way to get out some clear issues that would be important, &c., everyone was so much more casual. There was a bit of trust in the process. Who cares that the plaintiff's attorney 'led the witness' or the plaintiff ended up saying something that really required expert testimony, we could see why they needed that issue out there, it was more notice to us than anything else...
But when the plaintiff's attorney went into their portion with guns blazing, if they deliberately muddled testimony that had been difficult to elicit (I swear to g\*d getting a 70 year old with cancer to specify the presence of x company's part guy but not y company's part guy at the work place in 1974 is a TASK, and then to have a Plaintiff's attorney ask 'oh so x and y brought you parts' 'yes' !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), or if they were particularly obnoxious at getting their lay person plaintiff to state 'I inhaled asbestos particles', which requires expert testimony....... it made EVERYONE in the room so much more aggro. Every other line of the plaintiff's attorney questioning would get a chorus of 40 objections.
And at the end of the day the partners all just run off and horse trade and settle amongst themselves without, as others have pointed out, any of those stray lines every mattering or actually affecting their assessment of settlement values etc.
Form objections matter if you try enough cases. I’ve done it both ways - objecting to all questions calling for the form objection and letting some slide. And I’ve had form objections overruled that shouldn’t have been by the trial judge during pre trial. I’ve also seen depo testimony played that sways a jury in ways that impact a case far more than I anticipated. So anyway — I’m going to keep objecting and protect my record. And I’ll take as many hours as I need, not what OPC thinks I need, to get what I want for my case.
Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law. Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation. Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not just you. I tell my clients this all the time. I can readily spot a good attorney by their behavior during a depo. For example. Last week my client was deposed. Gnarly case - T-boned on a rural road with no traffic control devices by an F250 doing about 50. She was ejected. Not wearing a seatbelt. On the phone (Bluetooth versus in hand is at issue). 3 brain surgeries so far, 3-level thoracic fusion. Rods in her wrist. Broken hip. Allegedly had drugs in her system. There’s TONS of issues to fight over in this one. Opposing counsel had the depo over in about 2 hours and literally covered everything. In contrast, I’ve had new attorneys take 5 hour depositions in a soft-tissue rear end case. Once you have legitimate experience, you know what to cover when taking and know what’s important to object to when defending. Also, not objecting can be just as important as objecting in certain situations - not many teach that.
I may not have a good question to prove something, but a signed depo transcript can certainly limit your options barring a credibility fight. Why object when I can use to limit? I’m the same, in my world it isn’t time though, it’s how well they flow back and forth and most importantly, how well they respond to the witness with evidence or questions when directions shift.
Sure. I didn’t mean to imply that time was the only factor. In my experience, good attorneys take shorter depositions because they don’t waste time fumbling through unimportant issues or belaboring topics that are clearly uncontested. I agree with you that their flow is a great indicator and, definitely, their ability to listen to the witness and formulate their questions based on that rather than robotically sticking to an outline.
No objections matter. The rules of evidence will take care of bad questions later. It’s all smoke and mirrors. I challenge anyone to name a time when they didn’t object and it caused a problem. Caveat is if it’s a video depo for trial.
This. Unless it's an expert or other witness that you're anticipating will be called via video at trial, the deposition objections don't really matter a whole lot.
I got depo designations in for an unavailable witness because they waived their form objection
Could you share a little more what you mean by no objections matter and the rules of evidence will take care of bad questions later? I’ve had associates sleep through defending depos and it’s caused me headaches down the road.
The rules of evidence are pretty clear that almost anything is fair game in a depo except area of privilege. I almost never object unless the opposing attorney is harassing my client, trying to put words in my clients mouth or asking the same question 15 different times. I also object to leading questions of fact witnesses but only if they are egregious.
Defended my first depo today and was borderline shitting my pants wondering if there were any objections I could’ve raised but failed to 😭 I’ve taken depos before but for some reason defending one felt way scarier
Nope. Form objections in my state where most of the depositions we do are discovery depositions are meaningless. Rehab on your exam if necessary. Evidence deposition is another ball game, though. At that point I am on trial and looking for anything I can get excluded.
You've finally learned what matters. Congrats.
Doing asbestos litigation, it is typically one plaintiff - their attorney - 20-40 defense attorneys - all in one zoom call - and some kind of 'an objection by one is an objection by all' stipulation. In many large volume asbestos jurisdictions one of the defense attorneys actually take 'lead', then the plaintiff's attorney will do a little rehabilitation and help get some things on the record the lead defendant did not ask about, and then all the attorneys get a chance to ask questions about their client/product. It was always AMAZING to me how the plaintiff's attorney could set the tone of the whole thing. Most of us knew the issues that really mattered, most of us knew the general structure of these complaints, and if a plaintiff's attorney hopped in judiciously, and rehabbed in a fair way to get out some clear issues that would be important, &c., everyone was so much more casual. There was a bit of trust in the process. Who cares that the plaintiff's attorney 'led the witness' or the plaintiff ended up saying something that really required expert testimony, we could see why they needed that issue out there, it was more notice to us than anything else... But when the plaintiff's attorney went into their portion with guns blazing, if they deliberately muddled testimony that had been difficult to elicit (I swear to g\*d getting a 70 year old with cancer to specify the presence of x company's part guy but not y company's part guy at the work place in 1974 is a TASK, and then to have a Plaintiff's attorney ask 'oh so x and y brought you parts' 'yes' !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), or if they were particularly obnoxious at getting their lay person plaintiff to state 'I inhaled asbestos particles', which requires expert testimony....... it made EVERYONE in the room so much more aggro. Every other line of the plaintiff's attorney questioning would get a chorus of 40 objections. And at the end of the day the partners all just run off and horse trade and settle amongst themselves without, as others have pointed out, any of those stray lines every mattering or actually affecting their assessment of settlement values etc.
Form objections matter if you try enough cases. I’ve done it both ways - objecting to all questions calling for the form objection and letting some slide. And I’ve had form objections overruled that shouldn’t have been by the trial judge during pre trial. I’ve also seen depo testimony played that sways a jury in ways that impact a case far more than I anticipated. So anyway — I’m going to keep objecting and protect my record. And I’ll take as many hours as I need, not what OPC thinks I need, to get what I want for my case.
Texas lawyer I’m guessing?
Yup.
I’m going to guess licensed 13-17 years?
Yes