by Daniel DeWoskin
Trial Attorney
www.atlantatrial.com

As a trial lawyer, I am rather perpetually concerned with not only the message I am trying to convey to my audience, but also the manner in which I am attempting to convey this message. I have studied communications theory for years and years now, long before I ever attended law school, but only recently have I been focusing my study on cognitive sciences, or what some may refer to as “Neuro-linguistic Programming” or “NLP.” The value of NLP application, or at the very least an understanding of its interaction and influence upon how we as advocates communicate with clients, judges, courts, and colleagues, cannot be overstated. It is far more than simple pointers as to how to woo someone with an award-winning toastmaster speech.

by Daniel DeWoskin
Trial Attorney
www.atlantatrial.com

As attorneys, we have one of the most difficult jobs to simply duck out for a spontaneous three-day weekend getaway. Notice that we aren’t even allowed to call it a vacation. Such time away from one’s legal practice is referred to as a “leave of absence,” which immediately has a negative connotation; a feeling of abandoning the courts, the clients, the job.

Uniform Superior Court Rule 16.1 ensures that we will promptly put together the multitude of letters and notices to clerks, opposing counsel, and judges to appropriately inform everyone of our leave of absence in plenty of time for them to object. Fortunately, most of us do not find ourselves in the position of having to deal with unreasonable objections. It is still quite an ordeal just to know that you will not find yourself paying airlines’ exorbitant flight change fees or forfeiting some vacation deposit because you did not realize how a case that has been ongoing for the past five years suddenly has to get tried during the week you intended to test out a new system at the tables in Vegas.

by Daniel DeWoskin
Trial Attorney
www.atlantatrial.com

I know I am not the first to say it, but I don’t know where this year went. There are still so many books I intended to read this year that I have not yet had the time to read, so many tasks I intended to address around the house, and so many New Year’s Resolutions that I failed to pay any attention to whatsoever as of Jan. 2, 2010. Well, I suppose the year is not yet over.

by Daniel DeWoskin
Trial Attorney
www.atlantatrial.com

Today, like many DeKalb Bar Association members, I observed a debate between Ken Hodges and Sam Olens, both of whom aspire to be the next Georgia Attorney General. Amidst the bickering over each candidate’s resume and job performance were the undertones of an intellectual disagreement as to whether or not the position of attorney general is better categorized as that of a prosecutor or a politician. Of all the important topics briefly touched upon by the two candidates during the brief and insightful debate, I found this schism regarding the most basic job description particularly compelling.

For the most part, both candidates were deferential to those individuals who held the seat they now seek in previous years. Where there was criticism of a predecessor, it was based upon a difference of political ideology, or so it would appear to me as the observer. The election for attorney general is, in fact, a partisan election, so it should not be surprising that these criticisms exist and perhaps largely along party lines. However, in analyzing the merit of Mr. Hodges’ contention that his experience as a district attorney better qualifies him for the position than Mr. Olens’ experience as a county commissioner, one cannot help but acknowledge that an attorney general must follow the law without regard to personal political philosophy. He cannot and should not enforce only those laws he feels are worthwhile. Mr. Olens’ point is also well taken that unconstitutional laws should be challenged.

by Daniel DeWoskin
Trial Attorney
www.atlantatrial.com

CNN recently ran a story on how the economy is having a severe impact on many of those who are called to serve as jurors (www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/17/jury.duty.recession/index.html?hpt=C1). In the best of economic times, even those among us who can best afford to sacrifice time at work to engage in our noble civic duties might cringe at the summonses in our mailboxes. However, what this article makes clear is that today, perhaps more so than ever before, the toll taken by this sacrifice on the jurors can be devastating.

by Daniel DeWoskin
Trial Attorney
www.atlantatrial.com

This year I have been volunteering as an assistant coach with the Georgia Mock Trial Competition. In the past I have volunteered as a judge during the competitions, but this year I have been more actively involved in dissecting the problem and helping a student team shape their case. I can now say, without a doubt, that the experience has been one of the most fun, engaging, and rewarding volunteer opportunities in which I have ever taken part. Other than the fun that I have had, I have learned far more from the student participants than I ever anticipated.