PARADOX OF GRACE

                When I was sworn into the Forsyth County Bar fourteen years ago the judge presiding over the ceremony made some opening remarks.  I don’t remember everything he said, but I do remember him beseeching us newly minted lawyers to be collegial in our dealings with opposing counsel.  If he told us why we should do that, I don’t recall the reason.  Since then, I have been to other swearing-in ceremonies in other counties both big and small.  While the size of the crowd may vary, one thing doesn’t change.  The presiding judge always preaches collegiality above all else. 

                Last week, I went to the Mecklenburg County swearing-in ceremony and sure enough, collegiality was the center-piece of the remarks of both the state and federal presiding judges.  And, as usual, they preached it as a stand-alone ethic—something a lawyer should just always do, like being honest.  It got me thinking a bit.  Why do judges always preach collegiality instead of, say, honesty, punctuality or any other virtue?  Why always collegiality?  It’s particularly odd to me in Charlotte because, despite the fact that it is the biggest bar in North Carolina, it is by far the most collegial of the three county bars of which I have been a member.  It always seems a bit to me like preaching to the choir to tell Charlotte lawyers to treat each other well.  We pretty much already do.

                But if I was a brand new lawyer, I would have a different question and that would be:  why?  Why should I treat opposing counsel kindly?  A lawyer’s first duty is zealous representation of his client’s best interests.  What if that is best served by giving the other guy H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks?  If I was a new lawyer, I’d be asking myself how I am supposed to reconcile the judge’s admonition of collegiality above all else and my clear duty to litigate hard for my client. 

                I think there is an answer to this apparent dilemma, but I’ve never heard a judge say it (to be fair, maybe that’s because they travel in packs of one and don’t actually have to practice collegiality).  Here is what I think it is: treating opposing counsel well doesn’t conflict with zealous representation, it IS zealous representation.  Call it the Paradox Of Grace, because it may seem counter-intuitive, but after you have litigated for a while you realize that the cases that are best resolved for your clients are the ones in which you cooperated most fully with opposing counsel.  And the opposite is true as well.  The cases in which you constantly squabbled  with your opposite number are the ones that go badly and seem cursed from the outset.  I don’t know why this is so, but I firmly believe it to be true.  Being nice wins—not for the lawyer, but for the client.  And that is all that should matter.