Legal Practice – Page 36 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

New “Marquette Lawyer” Magazine Offers Insights from Paul Clement

Post author:Alan J. Borsuk
Post published:October 13, 2013
Post category:Education & Law Federal Law & Legal System Federalism Health Care Legal Practice Marquette Law School Public Speakers at Marquette U.S. Supreme Court

Paul Clement has argued some 70 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. He was solicitor general of the United States and now, in private practice, continues to present arguments in some of the most important cases of our time.

In the cover story in the new “Marquette Lawyer” magazine, Clement discusses some of the cases he’s been involved in, particularly the momentous Affordable Care Act decision of 2012 and several national security cases. He talks about what it is like to make an argument before the Court and especially what’s needed to prepare for an argument.

Clement’s thoughts were offered during his visit to Marquette Law School on March 4, 2013, when he delivered the annual E. Harold Hallows Lecture and held a special “On the Issues with Mike Gousha” event for law students. (Video of the lecture is available here and of the “On the Issues” here.)

Also in the new issue, an article describes the complex legacy of a class action lawsuit challenging how Milwaukee Public Schools deals with students with special education needs. Even as plaintiffs lost the case in court, they succeeded in influencing changes that they favored.

Professor Phoebe Williams is featured in a profile story in the magazine, and the success of the Law School’s faculty blog is marked with a compilation of pieces written by Professor Daniel D. Blinka; Mike Gousha, distinguished fellow in law and public policy; and State Public Defender Kelli S. Thompson, L’96 .

Partnering With Clients: A View From the Other Side

Post author:Jonathan Fritz
Post published:October 4, 2013
Post category:Legal Practice Public

Know your client’s business. Find practical solutions to complex problems. Be efficient and economical. Develop personal relationships. Deliver great results. Be responsive and available. Tenaciously fight for your client’s interests.

Do all of this and you will be successful representing clients big and small in whatever your field of choice. But that’s not surprising. Excellent customer service coupled with great results at reasonable cost is the gold standard. What may be surprising, especially to younger attorneys, is the importance of the little things. The devil, as they say, is in the details.

Being in-house counsel provides a different perspective on the traditional attorney-client relationship and what makes that relationship a fruitful one. For those working in private practice, you should periodically assess yourself and what you are doing to strengthen those relationships. Some attorneys even send questionnaires to gauge client satisfaction.

With that in mind, here are a few items that can help to make a client your business partner. They may seem obvious, but they are worth revisiting.

Making Eye Contact

Post author:Melissa Love Koenig
Post published:October 3, 2013
Post category:Legal Practice Legal Writing Public

I read about an interesting study on eye contact that was posted today on the legal writing listserv, “Why Eye Contact Can Fail to Win People Over.” The article refers to a study conducted in Germany where university students were polled about their opinions on controversial topics and then asked to watch a two-minute video on these topics. When the students agreed with viewpoint being expressed, they were more likely to look at the eyes of the speaker expressing the opinion, and less likely when they disagreed or felt neutral.

The students were also less likely to change their opinions, as measured in a second poll, when they looked directly in the speakers’ eyes. This was particularly true when the person in the video looked directly at viewers, rather than to the side of the frame.

Then in a second study, students were asked to look either at a person’s eyes or mouth.

The students who looked at the speakers’ eyes changed their attitudes less than the people who looked at the speakers’ mouths. They also said they were less interested in hearing more about the views presented.