Replies

The slimy behavior he describes is pretty much SOP for a deposition. I’ve been through many in my career, and they’re never pleasant, though they get a bit less stressful as you learn what to watch out for. One of my pet peeves is when the opposing attorney asks what seem to be simple questions but which also contain a subtle premise that they are trying to get you to accept. I would always ask them to rephrase the question because I didn’t agree with the included premise, which after you do that a few times gets them frustrated and angry. They word their question in that way sometimes to try to get you to seem to be agreeing to two different things when you think you’re only agreeing to one.

Of course, the cardinal rule in either depositions or trial testimony is to carefully listen to the question and only answer what was asked and no more (unless you’re facing an inept attorney who words their question in such a way that they provide you an opening to get in information that they don’t want - then it’s a ton of fun to watch them panic as you “answer their question” in great detail).

>One of my pet peeves is when the opposing attorney asks what seem to be simple questions but which also contain a subtle premise that they are trying to get you to accept.<

I’ve testified for a few arbitrations. One opposing lawyer would start his question with “Is it not true, blah, blah, blah?” I would wait out the two minute long question and respond “Yes.”

His face would brighten and he’d conclude that I agreed with his hairbrained position. I’d simply say “ Yes, it is NOT true.” The $hit eating grin would disappear.

It took a while, but I trained him not to start with “Is it not true?”

Oddly, outside the hearing room, he was a really nice chap to share a few beers with.

And don’t get me started with “notwithstanding.”