How do you cope with discovery? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'll be returning to a firm in a few months after clerking, and I wanted to know how those of you who like litigation cope with discovery. Requests for production, requests for admissions (?), interrogatories, managing document productions, meeting and conferring, seem like a pain. Discovery motions seem like they don't really deal with law? And it seems like that's a big part of what being a litigation associate will require. Have any of you figured out a way to cope with it? Is it really as bad as people say?

[12YrsAnAssociate]

I think massive doc review is the bad part of discovery. It's good for hitting hours, but mind-numbingly boring and doesn't do much to develop skills. Hopefully as a clerk you've avoided that phase. I don't necessarily mind anything else. If anything, when I was a junior, drafting discovery motions was an opportunity to write, since MSJs and motions to dismiss usually went to higher-level associates. And smaller doc review helps you be the expert of the facts for the case.

[Anonymous User]

Discovery motions are often fact-intensive by nature. The legal standards do matter so you can't ignore them, especially in federal court. But the outcomes of these motions are highly dependent on the minute details of the discovery issue and the sequence of events in terms of which lawyer did what.

Absolutely do not underestimate how critical it is to stay on top of discovery. It is tedious and hard work, but if you fall behind, the consequences can be very stressful, embarrassing, or even career-impacting. One pro tip I can offer you: become very good friends with your paralegals and secretaries. They can save your ass when it comes to navigating discovery conflicts.

[Anonymous User]

Discovery motions are often fact-intensive by nature. The legal standards do matter so you can't ignore them, especially in federal court. But the outcomes of these motions are highly dependent on the minute details of the discovery issue and the sequence of events in terms of which lawyer did what.

Absolutely do not underestimate how critical it is to stay on top of discovery. It is tedious and hard work, but if you fall behind, the consequences can be very stressful, embarrassing, or even career-impacting. One pro tip I can offer you: become very good friends with your paralegals and secretaries. They can save your ass when it comes to navigating discovery conflicts.

Can you say more about how paralegals and secretaries can be lifesavers?

[Anonymous User]

I'll be returning to a firm in a few months after clerking, and I wanted to know how those of you who like litigation cope with discovery. Requests for production, requests for admissions (?), interrogatories, managing document productions, meeting and conferring, seem like a pain. Discovery motions seem like they don't really deal with law? And it seems like that's a big part of what being a litigation associate will require. Have any of you figured out a way to cope with it? Is it really as bad as people say?

I'd push back pretty hard against the bolded statement. Discovery is much more what being a lawyer is about than appellate argument (which I am guessing is your frame of reference). I've seen a lot of former clerks getting into trouble for not paying enough attention to things like discovery and the pesky "facts" of a case, because whether they wanted to admit it or not they felt like it was beneath them.

Which brings me to advice: the biggest thing you can try and change is your attitude. If you are going to be doing federal district court litigation, you need to see discovery as the heart of your case. Whether you win or lose rises and falls with how diligent you are in pushing for discovery, actually reviewing and analyzing what you have, figuring out where the holes in your proof are, and finding a way to fill them. It doesn't matter how neatly you think that one precedent you found lines up with your case if you are only realizing the week before trial you should have pursued a third party subpoena for the other side's supplier. When you properly value the importance of the work, it becomes much easier to slog through it. It's still a slog, but it's an important slog.

[Anonymous User]

I'll be returning to a firm in a few months after clerking, and I wanted to know how those of you who like litigation cope with discovery. Requests for production, requests for admissions (?), interrogatories, managing document productions, meeting and conferring, seem like a pain. Discovery motions seem like they don't really deal with law? And it seems like that's a big part of what being a litigation associate will require. Have any of you figured out a way to cope with it? Is it really as bad as people say?

I'd push back pretty hard against the bolded statement. Discovery is much more what being a lawyer is about than appellate argument (which I am guessing is your frame of reference). I've seen a lot of former clerks getting into trouble for not paying enough attention to things like discovery and the pesky "facts" of a case, because whether they wanted to admit it or not they felt like it was beneath them.

Which brings me to advice: the biggest thing you can try and change is your attitude. If you are going to be doing federal district court litigation, you need to see discovery as the heart of your case. Whether you win or lose rises and falls with how diligent you are in pushing for discovery, actually reviewing and analyzing what you have, figuring out where the holes in your proof are, and finding a way to fill them. It doesn't matter how neatly you think that one precedent you found lines up with your case if you are only realizing the week before trial you should have pursued a third party subpoena for the other side's supplier. When you properly value the importance of the work, it becomes much easier to slog through it. It's still a slog, but it's an important slog.

This is a very good and helpful insight. You're totally right that a change of attitude would probably help me, so thank you!

[Anonymous User]

I'll be returning to a firm in a few months after clerking, and I wanted to know how those of you who like litigation cope with discovery. Requests for production, requests for admissions (?), interrogatories, managing document productions, meeting and conferring, seem like a pain. Discovery motions seem like they don't really deal with law? And it seems like that's a big part of what being a litigation associate will require. Have any of you figured out a way to cope with it? Is it really as bad as people say?

I'd push back pretty hard against the bolded statement. Discovery is much more what being a lawyer is about than appellate argument (which I am guessing is your frame of reference). I've seen a lot of former clerks getting into trouble for not paying enough attention to things like discovery and the pesky "facts" of a case, because whether they wanted to admit it or not they felt like it was beneath them.

Which brings me to advice: the biggest thing you can try and change is your attitude. If you are going to be doing federal district court litigation, you need to see discovery as the heart of your case. Whether you win or lose rises and falls with how diligent you are in pushing for discovery, actually reviewing and analyzing what you have, figuring out where the holes in your proof are, and finding a way to fill them. It doesn't matter how neatly you think that one precedent you found lines up with your case if you are only realizing the week before trial you should have pursued a third party subpoena for the other side's supplier. When you properly value the importance of the work, it becomes much easier to slog through it. It's still a slog, but it's an important slog.

I think this is an excellent post.

[Anonymous User]

Discovery motions are often fact-intensive by nature. The legal standards do matter so you can't ignore them, especially in federal court. But the outcomes of these motions are highly dependent on the minute details of the discovery issue and the sequence of events in terms of which lawyer did what.

Absolutely do not underestimate how critical it is to stay on top of discovery. It is tedious and hard work, but if you fall behind, the consequences can be very stressful, embarrassing, or even career-impacting. One pro tip I can offer you: become very good friends with your paralegals and secretaries. They can save your ass when it comes to navigating discovery conflicts.

Can you say more about how paralegals and secretaries can be lifesavers?

Happy to elaborate. Lawyers of all ages are prone to ignoring or refusing to see how skilled their staff actually are. Some of us are horrific micro-managers, and the result is usually a career full of ineffective labor and being a mediocre lawyer.

Secretaries tend to have social navigation skills that far exceed those of their lawyers, but that's not totally on topic here. When it comes to paralegals especially, their brains are usually wired to analyze complex document jungles and translate them into a completed puzzle, index and bates stamps included. Some are wired that way naturally. Others get their training certificates or degrees to obtain that skill. Maintaining complex document logs that time stamp everything relevant to your case comes naturally to them. Use these skills to maximum advantage and basically treat paralegals as your partner on every project you have, because they literally are that. Sometimes you will need to be the boss on a particular detail because you have a J.D. But recognize that they can and should be the boss on many other details.

Once you incorporate them into your team as the valued team member that they actually are, your stress level from the anxiety of discovery conflicts will go down. And no, I am not a paralegal in disguise over here. I'm a senior trial litigator.