LEARN COMPLEX SUBJECTS THROUGHLY,
BE PROFESSIONAL TO THE CORE,
ALWAYS SHOW IMMENSE PATIENCE WHILE DEALING
WITH A JUDGE IN COURTROOM.

Moving on with Jay Goldberg’s book, ’’THE COURTROOM IS MY THEATRE’’, I would like to take you through another chapter, “The Neon Lights Are Bright On Broadway”. The author talks about Barry and Fran Weissler. Barry and Fran Weissler, veteran Broadway producers were Jay Goldberg’s clients. The Weisslers had turned to actor Anthony Quinn to play the leading role in their movie , “A Walk In The Woods”. Anthony Quinn however, fell ill during rehearsals, and the insurance company refused to pay the Weisslers, claiming that Quinn concealed a heart condition. The Weisslers sought millions of dollars from Quinn to compensate for their loss. They claimed Quinn knew of his condition, kept it from them, and exposed them to loss. The matter was referred to arbitration. Quinn claimed during arbitration that he had told the Weisslers about his heart condition and that they took the risk to cast him nonetheless. Goldberg, of course, claimed for his clients that Quinn never told the Weisselers. The arbitrator later ruled in favour of Goldberg’s clients concurring that he had indeed concealed his heart condition. The Weisselers became entitled to a multi-million dollar award.

Goldberg says, “The Quinn case is also a good lesson for young attorneys. Quinn had called a major cardiologist to attest to his recent heart condition, which allowed me to subpoena all his medical records. For several days before arbitration I immersed myself in the field of cardiology. Quinn’s cardiologist was so impressed with my knowledge of the subject that he later called a fellow attorney, Michael Rosen, and told him that the extent of what I knew was beyond belief. The lesson is that to be good trial lawyer takes inordinate attention to complex subjects. Don't ever be intimidated by what you have to face. Put in the effort and commitment that your client deserves and you, can pose as a cardiologist - if just for a day”.

The lesson from Goldberg is simple: When clients’ engage a lawyer with matters that are greatly complex and technical, he/she should be committed enough to pursue that subject till they comprehend its technical aspects and nuances. Change the situation, especially so that you begin to win instead of losing. Knowing and understanding a complex subject like medical jurisprudence or anatomy isn't easy since not many have dealt with it in their life time. All the more imperative then to work at it and learn the matter enough to come up with a successful winning legal solution.

The next chapter in Goldberg’s book, “An Acquittal Seconds After A Conviction”, the author begins by saying, “This is another short story, but with a good lesson on the importance of professionalism”. Jay Goldberg conducted a trial before Judge Leonard Wexler in Brooklyn federal court. It was alleged that the defendant, Goldberg’s client, was the prime mover of Chinese heroine distribution in the U.S. Goldberg moved for mistrial as the government agent testified to conversations he had had with persons whom the government conceded were not co-conspirators. But the judge reserved the decision on the motion.The trial proceeded and Goldberg felt that chances of his client coming out of this without a conviction looked bleaker by the day. Goldberg grew angrier and angrier each day about the judge reserving his decision on Goldberg’s motion. Inside the courtroom Goldberg remained professional, optimistic, and did his job to the best of his ability. Outside the courtroom he often voiced his anger to friends and colleagues at the judge’s indecision.

The trial lasted two long months and on expected lines the jury voted to convict his client. The Government lawyers were exultant. But their celebration was short-lived. Within a few seconds the judge pronounced, “ Regarding the matter of the defendant’s motion on the second day of trial to dismiss the case, I hereby grant that motion due to the wrongful and prejudicial testimony of the government agent”. The entire courtroom was stunned into silence. Nobody, including Goldberg , could believe what everybody had just heard. The government attorneys verbally lashed out at the judge. Reflectively, Goldberg asks, “Why did the judge wait nearly two months to render his decision of my motion?” And then he adds, “Whether you agree or disagree with how the judge handled it, the correct decision was made at the end”.

“No, the real reason is always remain professional in the courtroom no matter what. I was so angry that the judge refused to immediately make a decision on my motion, but I never let him know how angry I was. I saved my frustration for outside the courtroom walls and I focussed on what I could control, which was the trial at hand. I had to assume the motion would not be granted and that the only hope was for me to win the trial. I wonder - if I would have lashed out at the judge or if I had said or done anything during the trial to let him know that I was not pleased with him - would he have granted my motion ? He should have, based on the law, but again, we are only human. I believe that maintaining my professionalism for two months, as difficult as it was, may have been the reason the judge dismissed the case”. And this advice my friends is one of the biggest takeaways from his book.

Writer, Rajiv Chavan, is a Senior Advocate & Former President of Advocates' Association of Western India (2013- 2015, 2015-2018)