The nearly 3,000 attendees of the Annual Meeting and Convention heard from Supreme Court justices, legislators, nationally recognized attorneys and experts from across New Jersey at dozens of seminars. The event also featured networking opportunities and ways to incorporate mindfulness into the practice of law.
ATTORNEY JAN SCHLICHTMANN RELAYS ‘LESSONS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL WARS’
Renowned environmental attorney Jan Schlichtmann talked about his personal growth, justice and ‘lessons from the environmental wars’ in a morning talk with attendees of the New Jersey State Bar Association Annual Meeting and Convention.
In the 1980s, Schlichtmann represented eight families from Woburn, Mass. who had noticed strange taste in their area’s water and sickness in their children. The families believed the water was tainted by area industry. Ultimately, Schlichtmann won a multi-million dollar settlement for the families. Their fight was documented by author Jonathan Harr in A Civil Action, which was adapted into a film starring John Travolta as Schlichmann.
In the 1990s, Schlichtmann represented 69 families in Toms River who believed pollution caused by area industry led to a high incidence of cancer. In 2001, the area companies reached an undisclosed settlement with the families.
“The Woburn experience, it taught me many things,” Schlichtmann said. He urged the audience to remember that “truth” is an essential concept, but not a weapon. He stressed the importance of solutions. He compared the Woburn case to Toms River. Woburn, he said, took more than a decade and cost tens of millions of dollars, and “everything stopped because of it.” In Toms River, there was less cost and time involved, and a study was conducted that helped the community learn, he said.
“I think we need to be more healing and more open-hearted and more respectful of each other, and I think lawyers can help do that,” he said. “That’s the job of lawyers…to get people to the table and talk to one another. That, I think, is the highest calling of lawyers.”
STORYTELLING IN LITIGATION AND THE ROLE OF MASS TORTS IN SOCIETY
Access to justice and the role of lawyers as storytellers, especially in mass tort cases, took center stage in a conversation yesterday with some of the leading plaintiffs’ attorneys from New Jersey and the U.S.
“No matter what the case, the art of trial is essentially the same,” said Allan Kanner, a Louisiana attorney who handled the Deepwater Horizon litigation. “The important thing is to tell a compelling story: Keep it simple and be strategic.”
Kanner, who moderated “Masters of Mass Torts,” encouraged attendees to use focus groups to polish their trial plans, to always think ahead about what might happen at trial and ways to counteract bad outcomes, to distill complex ideas, and keep in mind that pictures can be powerful additions to testimony.
“The real art of the deal is to try to find a way to make it simpler,” he said.
In addition to Kanner, Stephen Grygiel, who is involved in cases with the NHL over concussion and Google about privacy issues, said attorneys should look at the procedural rules, discovery and trends on motions to dismiss as having important implications on the use of mass torts to pursue social good and check corporate behavior.
“Getting to trial these days is enormously difficult and that is where the challenge of access to justice comes in… People perceive there is a stratification of society. If everyone has access to the courts, that can be addressed,” he said.
Lynne Kizis, of Wilentz, offered perspective and discussed the lingering implications of the seminal 2011 Bristol-Meyers Squibb case, which centered on a blood thinner. She also discussed the limitation of personal jurisdiction.
“The contraction of personal jurisdiction seems very regressive and parochial and contrary to our expansive economy,” she said. Her advice: If you are going to move for dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction – do it at the outset.
ANSWERING ‘WHY DOES ORAL ARGUMENT MATTER?’
Oral argument may not be the tipping point in every case, but it can be absolutely critical, according to a panel of expert jurists.
“Can minds be changed? Definitely. Argument has changed my mind in the past,” said U.S. Third Circuit Court Judge Michael Chagares at the Annual Meeting and Convention seminar, “Effective Oral Argument in the Appellate and Trial Courts.”
New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Barry T. Albin said that the justices of the state’s highest court read the briefs in a case, review bench memos and research, but they do not conference before oral arguments.
“Our positions may not yet have crystalized, so this is a perfect opportunity for advocates to launch their argument to members of the Court who may not have fixed opinions… I have left oral argument looking at a particular issue in a very, very different way. I have done, at times, a complete 180… you really have the opportunity to change minds,” Albin said.
When it comes to the Appellate Division level, Judge Jack Sabatino said there are two reasons why oral argument can be really important.
“One is that how the argument goes may not necessarily affect the bottom-line result, but it may affect how narrowly or broadly we write the opinion,” he said. “The other reasons is … lawyers can be a wonderful sounding board for us on an approach that might not be exactly what either party advocated.”
Assignment Judge Mary C. Jacobson, who sits in Mercer County, also gave the viewpoints of a trial court jurist, which can present a different dynamic since there is only one judge.
Here are nine of their top tips for success on your feet:
- Get to your point;
- Breathe to conquer nerves and make sure to eat something;
- Know your case and be prepared to point to the record to back up positions;
- Watch the little things -- If you’re a person who talks with your hands, don’t keep a cup of water on the podium;
- Respect the court and adversaries, especially when disputing a point;
- Make eye contact;
- It’s ok to ask for clarification about a question a jurist is asking, but don’t be antagonistic;
- Respond and calibrate -- Only address the most successful and relevant issues from your brief; and
- Think of yourself as striking up a conversation with the court.
JARRETT ADAMS TELLS HIS STORY OF WRONGFUL CONVICTION AND THE ROAD TO A JD
At just 17 years old, Jarrett Adams was wrongfully convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to a maximum security prison. He served nearly ten years before being exonerated with the assistance of the Wisconsin Innocence Project. He has since earned his law degree.
Adams told his gripping and inspirational story as the keynote speaker at Thursday's 20th Annual Diversity Luncheon. He was a kid, he says, who was charged like a man. A cellmate took an interest and the time to go through his paperwork, and found something that was the key to his case. But it still took six more years before a Court of Appeals reversed the decision.
Adams recalled what he remembers most about his day in court: the lines and wrinkles on his mother’s forehead because she couldn’t afford an attorney when he was first arrested. He went to college and then law school because “I was trying to pay my mother back for the years that were robbed from us," he said.
Adams says that he was not treated as a human being. “It is by design that the criminal justice system is a business, and there are businesses that invest their money in prisons,” he said. “Because of the criminal justice system, people are having their candles put out.”
ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE DISCUSS VOTER SUPPRESSION
What does voter suppression look like today? That was the question tackled by a panel of experts who discussed the Voting Rights Act, gerrymandering and civil rights in 2018.
Panelists included Matthew Platkin, Chief Counsel for Gov. Phil Murphy; Dianna Houenou, Policy Counsel for the ACLU of New Jersey; Scott Novakowski, Associate Counsel, New Jersey Institute for Social Justice; and Donita Judge, Senior Attorney and Co-Program Director, Advancement Project’s Power and Democracy Program in Washington, D.C. The session was moderated by New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Walter F. Timpone.
Houenou advocated for giving the incarcerated the right to vote. She noted that racial disparities that are evident in who gets arrested, who gets convicted, and who gets incarcerated. "They (the incarcerated) are impacted every day by the people who make the decisions and the rules. It impacts their entire family and community. It’s important to give them the right to vote,” she said.
Platkin noted the importance of the right to vote for all citizens. “It’s important that we protect the right to vote and that we show up to vote,” he said. “We’re at a time when fundamental tenets we know as lawyers are being called in question.”
He also raised concerns that a new citizenship question on the 2020 U.S. Census could impact the response rate. If people go uncounted, there can be an impact on congressional seats and federal funding.
Novakowski added that this question has not been in the census since 1950.
Donita Judge described how gerrymandering when drawing legislative districts is done to prevent voters from electing the candidate of their choice. “Cracking districts dilutes the vote,” she said. “You have a community of interest and when you crack or split it, you dilute the vote and stop the voters from choosing the candidate of their choice, and this has a major impact on black communities.”
UNPACKING LEGAL ISSUES OF #METOO MOVEMENT AND LAYING OUT NEXT STEPS
Research suggests that 40-75 percent of women and up to 31 percent of men have experienced workplace sexual harassment.
Those stark statistics came from Elaine Zundl, the research director of Rutgers University Center for Women and Work, who kicked off a discussion about #MeToo and the current sexual harassment crisis that has swept from Capitol Hill to Hollywood to local businesses on Main Street.
Is this just a blip? That was the question posted by moderator and NJSBA Trustee Christine Amalfe of Gibbons PC.
“What I have seen is that it’s kind of opened the flood gates who have other forms of problems that clearly fall within the harassment gambit, race harassment, sexual harassment, disability harassment. People seem a lot more comfortable coming forward,” said panelist Ian Meklinsky, of Fox Rothschild.
With headlines exploding about new cases all the time, the panel of labor and employment and civil litigators examined why women don't come forward and report cases when they happen; why victims are coming forward now; how to counsel companies when allegations are made that date back years; implications for in-house, employment and criminal practitioners; new proposed legislation that may impact settlement of sex harassment cases; and how to successfully resolve these cases from both the plaintiff and defense perspective.
WHAT ARE THE TOP MISTAKES LAWYERS MAKE WHEN RUNNING A PRACTICE?
Building a thriving law firm requires skills in areas beyond the law, including time management, client development, staff training and cash flow, according to a panel of experts who spoke at a session on the small-firm pipeline.
Headlining the program was Cammie Hauser, a nationally-recognized practice advisor with extensive experience helping attorneys realize their financial potential. She outlined a number of mistakes lawyers make when running a practice. Panelists Craig M. Aronow of Rebenack, Aronow, Mascolo; former NJSBA president Paris P. Eliades; and Beth C. Manes of Manes & Weinberg shared their personal experiences with those issues.
Mistakes discussed include:
Owners wanting to do everything themselves. “You don’t need to be the super hero,” Hauser said. She encouraged owners to outsource activities that made sense to outsource, like bookkeeping and payroll. Pay attention, Aronow said, to whether what you are doing is the “highest and best use” of your time.
Not having written goals — either for the firm, or on a personal level. “When you write something down, it really does give clarity, and it makes it real,” Hauser said. Goals should have timelines associated with with them, she said.
Poor time management. Both Eliades and Manes talked about how they purposefully choose not to take calls at certain times so as to be more productive. An interruption might only be 30 seconds, Hauser said, but it really results in 15 minutes of wasted time as you try to resume your focus and flow.